Big name public universities (Berkeley/UVA/Michigan/UNC/UCLA) Versus Non-HYP ivies

College Search & Selection
1

<p>As I mentioned in my previous post on another thread: starting from 1983, USNews began to rank America’s best colleges on their August or September issues, with exception of 1984, 1986, and 1987. They did not explain why the rankings were not provided for those years. For the first two rankings, published in 1983 and 1985, each included a list of 10 universities (top 10). Starting from 1988, the list was expanded to 25 universities (top 25). Since its inception in 1983, the orders of top 25 schools varied year by year, which makes the annual event so exciting and dynamic. </p>

<p>To observe the dynamics of the top 25 schools, I subdivided the USNews’ rankings into three periods:</p>

<p>First periods fell between 1983 and 1989 (the 1980s),
Second periods between 1990 and 1999 (the 1990s), and
Third periods between 2000 and 2009 (the 2000s).</p>

<p>In 1989, USNWR introduced new empirical formula, which weighed in other important academic criteria e.g., faulty resources, acceptance rate, class size, etc. Such adjustment had profound impact on top 25 and top 25 had never been the same ever since, with the exception of the big 5, HYPSM, which appeared everyone’s favorites (top 5) through all these years. </p>

<p>The biggest and foremost impact the one can observe were the trends on the rising of Non-HYP ivies and falling of big name public universities from 1983 to 2009 (see Table 1). </p>

<p>In the 1980s, Berkeley (5-24), Michigan (7-25), and UNC (9-23) matched well with Dartmouth (6-10), Brown (7-13), and Cornell (8-14); UVA (15-20), UIUC (8-20), and Wisconsin (13-23) were as competitive as Columbia (8-18) and Penn (15-19) In the 1990s, only UVA (17-22) and Berkeley (13-27) could complete with Columbia (8-15), Brown (8-18), and Penn (6-20). In the 2000s, Non-HYP ivies outscored all the big name public universities. Such trend will continue if current formula (used in 2009) remained unchanged. </p>

<p>Are those USNWR rankings reflected actual time versus tides? </p>

<p>If yes, what went right with the Non-HYP ivies and what went wrong with the big name public universities?</p>

<p>If no, what should be the right order among them (Berkeley/UVA/Michigan/UNC/UCLA/UIUC/UTAustin/Wisconsin/W&M Versus Non-HYP ivies: Brown/Columbia/Cornell/Dartmouth/Penn)?</p>

<p>Table 1 Overall trend: rising of Non-HYP ivies versus falling of big name public universities:</p>

<p>In the 1980s:
Dartmouth (6-10), Brown (7-13), Cornell (8-14), Columbia (8-18), Penn (15-19)
Berkeley (5-24), Michigan (7-25), UNC (9-23), UVA (15-20), UIUC (8-20), Wisconsin (13-23), UCLA (21), UTAustin (25) </p>

<p>In the 1990s:
Dartmouth (7-10), Cornell (6-15), Columbia (8-15), Brown (8-18), Penn (6-20)
UVA (17-22), Berkeley (13-27), Michigan (17-25), UCLA (16-28), UNC (18-27), UIUC (40+), Wisconsin (30+) , UTAustin (40+)</p>

<p>In the 2000s:
Penn (4-7), Columbia (8-11), Dartmouth (9-11), Cornell (10-15), Brown (13-17)
Berkeley (20-21), UVA (20-24), Michigan (22-27), UCLA (24-26), UNC (25-30), UIUC (30+-40+), Wisconsin (30+) , UTAustin (40+)</p>

2

<p>

That’s exactly what I’d call it. :p</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Exciting and dynamic to WHOM? Given that school quality doesn’t change drastically year to year, knowing that School A went from #4 to #7 or School B went from #19 to #18 doesn’t mean anything. The whole measurement system is too fine. It should be done in tiers, not by numbers.</p>

4

<p>UCB, what do you mean by “faulty resources”? Could you elaborate?</p>

<p>PizzaGirl, excitement and dynamic do exist if that School A or School B is your Alma meter and/or favorite. Just take a look at what Clemson’s President did to other schools in his response to USNWR’s PA survey.</p>

<p>Like many CCers, as alumni of one (or multiple) of the top 25 national universities, we always wonder if our Alma meters could improve in their academic quality as years go-by and USNWR’s rankings is one of the references that serve such need (purpose).</p>

<p>What a shame: that UVA’s top rank baseball team fell short to Oklahoma in Super Regional Final last night.</p>

5

<p>modeling, I was teasing you for mis-spelling faculty…I thought it was a freudian slip, because I think the components that go into the USNWR’s “faculty resources” rating are indeed faulty.</p>

6

<p>As for the assertion that the top publics have somehow declined compared to their private counterparts, that is not the case. USNWR changes its ranking formula which favors private universities. If USNWR used the same methodology today to rank colleges the way they did in the mid '80s (i.e. 100% peer assessment), the top publics haven’t declined at all. Berkeley is still ranked #6 on a full PA method today…roughly the same spot it held in 1983.</p>

<p>Nothing went wrong with the big publics…USNWR changed its formula.</p>

7

<p>I agree with Pizzagirl. </p>

<p>And UCB is right. The Faculty and Financial resources rankings are ridiculously flawed, and the Alumni Donation Rank is completely pointless.</p>

8

<p>but are schools like Berkeley, UNC, UIUC, Wisconsin and UT Austin (For undergrad) really as elite as the non-HYP ivies?</p>

<p>Academically, I dont think so</p>

9

<p>The thing is that the tippy-top students at top publics, could be easily interchanged with the middle to upper middle students of the ivies, however because top publics are publics, they still have to accept many students of lower quality from their state that don’t add anything to the university.</p>

10

<p>Yeah, the top 5% of Michigan, UVA and Berkeley students are HYP material while the next 20% are probably Ivy/Stanford/Duke/<em>insert top private school</em> material. However, the middle 50% of these schools compare favorably to schools like BC, Rochester, Tulane and Lehigh instead. Finally, the bottom 25% of these universities actually belong in a community college or a low-tier state school and only got admitted to UM/UVA/UCB due to athletics/geographical quotas/belonging to a specialty vocational school like Nursing.</p>

11

<p>and so the US News Rankings have become the holy bible of college worthiness… I have to send a letter of congratulations to their marketing team.</p>

12

<p>Interestingly, USNWR’s computation of “faculty resources,” which involves comparing faculty salaries, does not adjust for cost of living in various locations. Many though not all of the prestigious state schools–UVA, UIUC, UNC–are in cheaper, more rural places than many of the prestigious privates–Columbia, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, for instance. Princeton, Stanford, and Columbia, for instance, must subsidize housing even for senior faculty so that they can afford to live in the area, whereas in Charlottesville, even a junior faculty member will often purchase a house. Most Columbia, Yale, and U of Chicago faculty send their children to private elementary and high schools, whereas UVA and UNC faculty typically use the public schools. </p>

<p>An article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed some years ago correlated faculty salaries to COL and it was interesting how different the relative rankings looked from the absolute ones.</p>

<p>None of these comparisons, to my knowledge, take into consideration the value of benefits. Private schools tend to offer faculty unique benefits, like college tuition help for their children, that state schools don’t, but often the state schools offer more generous health insurance and retirement.</p>

13

<p>UCB, thanks for the clarification. </p>

<p>Alex, thanks for your elaboration.</p>

<p>Lesdiablesbleus, those breakdowns are very insightful if supported with data. If available, could you let me know what references are you referring to? If not, it would still be an excellent observation.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>USNWR states otherwise:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[How</a> We Calculate the College Rankings - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/how-we-calculate-the-college-rankings.html?PageNr=3]How”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/how-we-calculate-the-college-rankings.html?PageNr=3)</p>

15

<p>None of this matters. USNWR is trying to model something that cannot be modeled. America’s “Best” colleges? Best for who? These are not sports teams. The idea is to find the best undergraduate experience for yourself, that experience including but not limited to academics. Harvard and Princeton are certainly best for some students, and certainly not for others, even if they have the qualifications. Gryffon has it exactly right. USNWR very cleverly realized that Americans and others like to have affirmation, and putting a number beside a school gives people that attend/have attended/have kids that attend those schools “bragging” rights. My God what a waste, trying to make objective something that by its very nature is highly subjective. Let people like Liao have their jollies, since he completely revealed himself (herself?) by slipping in that they went to a top 25 school.</p>

<p>Is there an ounce of proof that the parameters USNWR uses actually mean anything with regard to quality of the university experience one gets? No, of course not, because IT CANNOT BE MEASURED. As was pointed out, look how much it has changed. Look how it can be manipulated. Look how it depends heavily on people making assessments of schools they know little to nothing about. It is as far from schientific or even useful as these things can get.</p>

<p>You know, I don’t care if English is not Liao’s native language, any graduate of multiple top 25 universities should know it is alma mater, not alma meter.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh please. I’m an alum of a Top 20 school and I couldn’t be bothered worrying about whether my school inched up or down a few rankings. It was an excellent school providing a fine education, just like all of the other schools in the Top 20 (and thereabouts; nothing magic about 20). It’s like guys bragging about how long … oh, never mind. THat’s all it is.</p>

<p>To Alexandre / UCB’s points – yes, the way that USNWR is constructed may “pull down” the top publics a bit. Personally, I think comparing top publics to top privates is apples to oranges. There’s no question that the top publics provide amazing opportunities – but they do so in an atmosphere that is far different from the top privates (larger schools, larger classes, etc.). However, whether those things are good or bad is totally dependent on the student and his or her personal preferences. For my money, <em>I</em> would not have thrived at a top public because schools of that size aren’t my style – nor would my kids, I don’t think, and that’s why they aren’t exploring them. However, for other kids, those are great choices. So trying to argue which is “better” is silly. What’s better, a big resort or a small, intimate one? Depends on your taste. There’s no universal “better.”</p>

17

<p>"Yeah, the top 5% of Michigan, UVA and Berkeley students are HYP material while the next 20% are probably Ivy/Stanford/Duke/<em>insert top private school</em> material. "</p>

<p>LOL! How can a good university like Duke admit a person as ignorant and illogical as LDB?! The top 25% of the students at Cal score over a 1470 on the SAT. At Michigan and UVa, the top 25% score over a 1430 on the SAT. Those aren’t superscored. Can you tell me what percentage of students at elite private universities such as Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn score over a 1430 in a single sitting? 40%? Maybe 50%? How about over 1470? Maybe 35%? </p>

<p>“Finally, the bottom 25% of these universities actually belong in a community college or a low-tier state school and only got admitted to UM/UVA/UCB due to athletics/geographical quotas/belonging to a specialty vocational school like Nursing.”</p>

<p>And how do those students, if they truly exist, affect the experience of the rest of the student body? Are those nurses enrolled in the same classes as LSA and Engineering students?</p>

<p>BuddyMcAwesome, I expected this sort of blind prejudice from LDB. Such misplaced and unwarrented arrogance is part of his nature. But I expect better from you.</p>

18

<p>

Eh, not so much…both public and private national research universities have faculties, students, programs, curriculum and a common mission of academic research and education.</p>

<p>How is that exactly apples and oranges?</p>

19

<p>I think sheer size is part of the apples and oranges. I think the qualitative experience at being at a school the size of, say, Michigan is different from being at a school with a much smaller student body. Whether that’s good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.</p>

20

<p>Pizzagirl, you should try some of the public schools. They have the feel of any top university, private or public. Whereas intro-level classes in some popular majors may indeed be larger at large public universities, the majority of classes aren’t. </p>

<p>One must remember that private universities many times resort to strange strategies to make their classes seem smaller, such as having the same professor teach 3 or 4 lectures rather than having that same professor teach the students enrolled in those 3 or 4 lectures in a single larger class. In doing so, the private university reports 3 or 4 smallish classes rather than 1 large class, but that professor will not be able to provide the students with any more “personal attention”.</p>

<p>At any rate pizzagirl, segregating universities based on affiliation isn’t necessarily a good way to go about it. A top university is a top university, whether it is private or public. Will a student feel a significant difference betwen a LAC with 1,000-3,000 undergrads and a research university with 15,000-25,000 undergrads? Obviously. But will that student feel a significant difference between a research university with 6,000-10,000 undergrads and a research university with 15,000-25,000 undergrads? I don’t think so.</p>