I am not weighing in on what is more important to who. Research findings generated at Cornell have a tremendous impact on what the world knows. The impact is on almost every field imaginable and it is profound. Few universities in the world match the level of impact that Cornell has. Brown does not have that kind of impact. To answer the OP’s question, departments at Cornell are rated higher than those of Brown because Cornell is more of an academic powerhouse than is Brown. Powerhouse meaning influential within academic fields and influential in impact on life. Yes Cornell is bigger. Yes Cornell offers a broader range of programs. Yes Cornell has a larger faculty. Yes Cornell commands more research funds. All that contributes to my point. I am not saying that Cornell is a better or worse place for college students. I am not weighing in on whether the impact is more or less important at a graduate or undergraduate level. I am simply answering the OP’s question about why Cornell’s departments get higher ranks/ratings than do Brown’s on many but not all ranking systems. Producing and disseminating new information is an important aspect of any university. It is not the only one. On that dimension, regardless of the reasons, Cornell is more influential than is Brown.
Fenway Park, Size can matter. While a huge university can have little impact, it is hard for a small productive institution to match a large productive institution in terms of impact, grants, and productivity. Williams is an excellent college. But it would not be considered an academic powerhouse in the way that term is usually applied in academics. Brown is much more so than Williams. The size of Williams precludes the level of impact of Cornell or Brown. That does not mean that the faculty at Williams are less productive or “worse”.
The OP was not asking about Cornell. From his/her other thread, he’s interested in studying computer science at Brown, Stanford, Georgia Tech or UCLA.
For what it’s worth, USNWR undergrad department rankings (like Computer Science) are based solely on peer assessment forms mailed to deans and faculty members, of which only about a third to a half are returned. I would not base a decision on rankings!
I graduated from Georgia Tech and live near the campus and my daughter attends Brown. The undergraduate experiences at these two schools are worlds apart, in my opinion. You should visit and attend classes and visit the departments if possible.
I know. I’m just highlighting that what you’re saying supports my point that those departmental rankings’ metrics favor the needs of graduate students over undergraduate students.
I had read your “academic powerhouse” notion before, and remember thinking to myself, has this person read about brown’s neuro dept? Or heard of Gordon Wood or Prof Weinstein or Prof Donaghue? Or how about Andy van Dam, to name just a few leading researchers?
Both institutions are leading schools, as are the others that the OP is interested in. But as I said before, they’re different. Different kind of location, size, focus, vibe. Also, frat presence on campus. Not necessarily attracting the same student.
RenaissanceMom, I imagine you listed a link to a previous post of mine. My discussing a topic once or ten times is not “beating” a drum. I find your comment insulting. Fine if you think my posts are interesting enough to follow so closely but I would prefer if you would refrain from insulting me. There is no prohibition against discussing similar topics on different threads. I have neither said nor implied that faculty at Brown are not productive or influential. If the term “academic powerhouse” means the extent to which an institution contributes new findings/information that has a strong impact on a range of different academic disciplines, Cornell does so more than Brown. There may be plenty of Brown University faculty members who have more citations than any one faculty member at Cornell. As an institution, for whatever reason, Cornell has far more impact across multiple disciplines than does Brown. Cornell is being used as an example because it can address the OP’s question as a contrast to Brown. If you use the term Academic Powerhouse differently then most people in academics, then my posts may be incorrect. I am referring to that term as it is generally used in academics.
Here is a nonacademic analogue that may help. Let’s say there are two shoe manufacturers. Company A consists of 2 cordwainers who make shoes out of the finest leather. They view themselves as artists. They scour the world to find the very finest materials to make their shoes. They stitch each seam by hand. They tan the leather using natural dies that are unlikely to fade. By the time a pair of shoes is finished, it is a masterpiece. They make a dozen or so pairs a month. Company B has a plant that can produce a dozen shoes in a matter of minutes and millions in a month. The leather is not beautiful but it is sturdy. The coloring is not natural. Due to the low cost of manufacturing, the shoes can be sold cheap. As a result, entire villages of people who would otherwise not be able to afford shoes are able to buy Company B shoes. Company B’s reputation for producing cheap but sturdy shoes, spreads to all countries. Soon Company B shoes are being worn by all kinds of people on all continents. Of the two, Company B is the shoe manufacturing powerhouse. Frankly, I’d prefer wearing Company A’s shoes. But would I argue that, of the two, Company A was the shoe manufacturing powerhouse? No.
I am not that interested in playing games with semantics. The point is that compared to some other schools, Brown’s impact is lower. The university itself appears concerned about that very issue-and it is not just because they made a mistake filling out one aspect of a form. No the translation of my analog was not successful for you fenway park. fireandrain, the point of my analogy is simply that Company A and B are different. Depending upon what the consumer is seeking, Company A or Company B may be the better company. They are different. It is not worth machinations and navel examinations regarding my analogy. The point is that schools are different. Brown simply does not produce as much research as Cornell and the research that is produced does not have the same impact as that produced at Cornell but that does not mean that individual researchers at Brown are less productive. It’s ok. Brown has other strengths.
Brooks Brothers and Old Navy are different. Depending upon what the consumer is seeking, Brooks Brothers or Old Navy may be the better company. They are different.
@lostaccount I missed where you discussed this metric (vs volume of research)- does someone measure this? I don’t really have a dog in this fight (yet) but I think it is an interesting discussion.
On student profile for Engineering from American Society for Engineering Education site (OP stated Computer Science) the Fall 2013 enrolled freshman class:
“For whatever it is worth, Brown is much more difficult to gain admission”
Let’s say this: With above statistics from ASEE, Cornell has more CoE students enrolled and higher admission rate but still with higher scores. This tells me Cornell applicants are more self-selective - only the brave and high-achieving ones applied and it is hard to get in in a different way from just looking at admission rates.
(Also, ‘publications’ in previous post instead of publicans )
“If Brown doubles its class size, it would automatically go up in this ranking? Do I have that right?”
Wrong. Nornmally when a school is bigger the SAT/ACT scores watered down. If Brown does this, the ranking in USNWR will certainly drop.
“Brooks Brothers (Brown) and Old Navy (Cornell) are different. Depending upon what the consumer is seeking, Brooks Brothers or Old Navy may be the better company. They are different.”
Change it to:
Brooks Brothers and Louis Vuitton are different. Depending upon what the consumer is seeking, Brooks Brothers or Louis Vuitton may be the better company. They are different.
Findmoreinfo, you may know how to find more info but you certainly don’t seem to demonstrate any ability to analyze it.
In that shanghai methodology, only 10% of the score takes into account the size of the institution at all. Number of nobel prize winners, and number of papers in science and nature are of course more likely the more faculty, alumni and graduate students an institution has.
And this statement is based on what exactly? Especially when the comment you’re quoting was about PhD students, not undergraduate students since the ranking being discussed used # of PhDs awarded as a criteria for research prowess.
Are you trying to say that this is a meaningful difference? Additionally, Computer Science is not engineering so whatever students ASEE is looking at for Brown doesn’t
Except the volume of product sold by LV is smaller than BB. One of the major premises of lost account’s analogy was the concept that “Cornell” is the powerhouse because of the volume of knowledge it generates. He basically set up a quantity over quality comparison and inadvertently argued that while yes, Cornell has more faculty and generates more data, the quality may not be as good as Brown’s. Surely not his intention.
The MUP criteria again do not weight the size of the school:
For the life of me I do not understand people (aside from applicants and parents of multiple children who are speaking on behalf of themselves as alumni and 2nd hand info from their kids) that post on multiple school’s pages on CC. I couldn’t care less what the other boards are talking about. I took a several month hiatus from here so maybe you guys fit those descriptions and have been here a bunch and I just don’t realize but I get the feeling that neither of those descriptions apply to you.
I don’t know why you are engaging him in this conversation. Who asked about Brown v. Cornell? They are such different schools. Anyone smart enough to get into either of those schools could do a little research on their websites and learn how they are very different. And anyone would be lucky to attend and graduate from either of those institutions, IMO. The good thing is that students seem to be getting hired and placed into grad schools from both universities, so whatever the reputations, the important thing is the type of atmosphere that one wants to learn in.
@lostaccount - as a parent of a recent ED admit to Brown and looking back over your comments in various threads, I’m curious…is there a reason you dislike Brown so much? Do you have personal experience with the University?
iwannabebrown,
"In that shanghai methodology, only 10% of the score takes into account the size of the institution at all. "
Facts are facts. I told you to look at “highly cited researchers, publications, papers published in Nature and Science…”, this means include the PCP which is available there. If you don’t understand it that’s too bad.
“Computer Science is not Engineering”
Brown Computer Science has it “From our modest beginnings as an interest group within the Divisions of Applied Mathematics and ENGINEERING in the 1960s…” too bad, you didn’t know it. https://cs.brown.edu/about/
“Are you trying to say that this is a meaningful difference?” (720-790 and 750-800)
Yes, it is meaningful and significant when the earlier is with less students and the later is with a lot more.
“Surely not his intention”
I am not him/her, different intention isn’t something strange. I am not arguing his point.
Memo to Applicants, Prospective Applicants, and Others:
At Brown, Computer Science is its own department. It is not part of the School of Engineering. Check this link to see the concentrations offered by the School of Engineering:
)