<p>Pizzagirl - May be it is just me but I feel like only the Asians are portrayed as these soulless drones uninterested in liberal arts when I read some of your posts. If that is not the case, mea culpa.</p>
<p>The girl in question is queen of all things tech at her age but writes a very fascinating blog about her life and teenage existential angst. Based on her writings, she could go major in English at any college and is good enough to write a book that could win nobel prize in literature in about 20-30 years.</p>
<p>Princeton engineering seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. This must be coming at the expense of some other disciplines. I really think that given today’s global environment STEM subjects are more important than ever and students get this.</p>
<p>RacinReaver mentioned the ability to see the beauty in quantum mechanics, and I thought, “Hey! They’re calling me!” Actually, shortly before that, Pizzagirl mentioned “number-crunching, soulless drones” and I thought, “Hey! They’re . . .” oh, wait.</p>
<p>Also, if you go to the tab for “Analysis” and then “Rankings Methodology,” you will find somewhat more detailed information on the data and survey results that go into each of the categories. “Teaching” for example, includes teaching up to the Ph.D. level. In the sciences, serving as a research adviser for a graduate student is definitely “teaching.” This will obviously affect the LAC’s rankings, however.</p>
<p>xiggi, which list are you adding Stanford to? The list of schools with undergraduate teaching inferior to that of Pomona, CMC, or Smith? I hope not, since the quality of UG teaching was one measure we looked at, and Stanford placed higher (7th among national universities) in that category than many peer schools based on the USNWR rankings, however flawed. Pomona, CMC and Smith were not at the top of their LAC-specific list, though Pomona was highest at a tie for 15th.</p>
<p>I looked at the rankings for each of the individual criteria: teaching (30%), research (30%), international outlook (5%), industry outcome (innovation) (2.5%), and citations (presumably 32.5%?? can’t see the number). Harvard and Caltech are neck-and-neck in teaching, research, and citations, with Harvard slightly ahead in teaching and research and Caltech ahead in citations. Harvard is way ahead in international outlook, but Caltech crushes Harvard in innovation. Putting these together, Caltech comes out slightly ahead.</p>
<p>"I hope not, since the quality of UG teaching was one measure we looked at, and Stanford placed higher (7th among national universities) in that category than many peer schools based on the USNWR rankings, however flawed. Pomona, CMC and Smith were not at the top of their LAC-specific list, though Pomona was highest at a tie for 15th. "</p>
<p>I know what it says, and I’m saying, point-blank, that the ratings of teaching at top national universities versus those at good (and not necessarily even “top”) LACs are flat-out wrong. I’m not beating around the bush - based on my first- and close secondhand experience, they’re simply wrong.</p>
<p>(I know how much time Princeton professors actually spend with undergraduates. I know who does the bulk of the teaching, who grades the essays, who grades the exams, and who, often, the students go to with questions and problems. In the humanities at least, I know what kind of kinds of undergraduate research opportunities there are to work closely with senior faculty - who, by the way, are fantastic. It’s not close. And this is at the supposedly most “undergraduate-focused” of the Ivies.)</p>
<p>But I’m very glad P. is so “highly ranked” in the humanities. Maybe it will help my d. get a job some day!</p>
<p>My comments are made from the standpoint of the “consumer” or the learner, to use a less offensive term. They are also reflecting on the experience of a student at a particular school. Does it matter to STUDENTS if a school has a prestigious faculty that is totally dedicated to researching and publishing? Surely a lot less than the availability of EFFECTIVE guidance and mentorship. And, of course, dedicated TEACHING by faculty. </p>
<p>I did also write that “the definitions and measurements of “quality of teaching” are in the eye of the beholder” and this can lead to important differences. For instance, a large number of people seem to be quite content to sit (read hide) in the back of a large auditorium and then meet in sections led by people who are barely older than them. The same people might find the Socratic approach of teaching too direct. I tend to find the latter of a much higher “quality.” but have to admit that the quality of the small classes is just as variable as the large lectures cum TA’s approach. </p>
<p>However, I do not think there is ANY doubt that the rankings of “quality of teaching” are pure and unadulterated horse manure and that the methodology that generates such ranking is based on mostly irrelevant metrics. The USNews metric is nothing else than a popularity contest that has no validity and little to no integrity. The THE methodology is not even worthy of a comment.</p>
<p>An interesting sidelight to your note, Xiggi, is that, when I was a Chicago, I am sure I could have delivered better (and often, MUCH better) lectures than some of the famous profs. I was often more up-to-date with the research and current trends, often better organized, and I like to believe that I could tell better jokes. What I couldn’t do as well (as my undergrad profs. at Williams) was lead an excellent discussion group (and I never received even one hour of training in doing so).</p>
<p>And there was no way that an undergrad was EVER going to do any significant research alongside the famous profs in the humanities. That what I was being paid to do, and, at the time, my future career depended upon it. (I need to add, however, that unlike my experience at Chicago where I led “discussion groups”, my d. at P. doesn’t lead discussion groups, but teaches new material.)</p>
<p>Sorghum - Of course there is only one unique person that meets all of those specific attributes. There are only 20 or Thiele grants each year and I highly doubt there are many who turn down a grant to attend a specific college.</p>
<p>OTOH, there are many who turn down Ivies to go to other colleges, if not MIT.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad - There are less than 1000 undergrads at Caltech and rest are graduate students. Does Harvey Mudd offer a graduate program in Engineering? It sounds like this ranking is more based on post graduate level achievements.</p>
<p>Xiggi - Many covers 25% of admittees at Harvard and Yale, 30% or more at most of the other Ivies. It still amounts to a few thousand in total unless you know all the cross admits and can provide a concrete number in terms of overlaps.</p>
<p>Is the assumption that when they turn down one Ivy they usually end up at another?</p>
<p>Here’s a little secret - the kids at Caltech are a lot more interesting that people think - not too many drones that I ever met. I was a librarian for a professor who taught a course in African history and made his (Huge) library available to students. The student who came in and discussed their paper topics with me were engaged and entertaining. I saw a production of Lady’s Not for Burning with Richard Feynman taking one of the roles. There is more arts and humanities going on their than people realize. That said, it’s still obviously a tech school and they make no secret of it.</p>
<p>I am easily satisfied, TPG. I was simply trying to understand the context of your post. </p>
<p>Many is such a broad term. As an example, many would claim that many students turn down Stanford for UC-Berkeley when cross-admitted. They are not incorrect per se, as “many” in this case can represent the correct dozen or fewer students. </p>
<p>I tend to prefer to see “this many” out of “this many” :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but I think that the assumption is that they end up attending an equally prestigious school or extremely attractive program. And there is plenty of evidence of substantial cross-admits among the Ivy League+MIT+Stanford. And, if you like the purely theoretical projections, you might find the information of the revealed preferences interesting. Well, that is before checking the comments in this thread:</p>
<p>TK, Pizzagirl, et.al.
When Harvard was ranked #1, it was all ok. It was ok to have Caltech and other smaller, your so-called niche schools, ranked at a spot somewhat lower. But they can not take the #1 spot? They can not be ranked higher than Harvard or whatever school ? Shouldn’t you folks be loud mouthing that these other schools, that you say should not occupy the #1 spot, must not be ranked at all?? Look, if they are ranked #5 in some year, they can be ranked #1 in some other year. You folks are just hilarious, full of nonsense. These schools, caltech, dartmouth, … whatever niche school, have been ranked on the same scale year after year. IF you think any one school can be ranked, but not #1, THEN ask yourself if your mind is straight or check with your doctor. [ Harvard, having produced so many investment bankers, deserves much of the blame that the wall street protesters are crying about.] Engineers and Scientists solve Worlds problems and create jobs. Investment Bankers, that HYP produces so many of, steals wealth and destroys jobs.</p>
I agree with your first sentence but not with your second. In order for these engineers and scientists to solve the problems there needs to be funding and generally a profitable income stream from the companies they work for (or who donate money to and fund the projects for the ones at the universities) in order for them to be able to do what they do. If you check you’ll find many of the CEOs and senior management of the companies, leaders of the banks financially backing the company, and venture capitalists allowing those engineers and scientists to function, are from the HYPS… colleges as well as others of course.</p>
<p>Xiggi - My reference point was 20 for Thiele grants. Compared to that 300-400 people turning down Harvard to go whereever is many (I know you don’t want me to say UCB but I am sure there might be one or two!).</p>
<p>Interestingly, Caltech has probably the worst yield at 35% or so in top 10. So most admits at Caltech must be getting into a lot of other top schools since there are close 400 people going elsewhere out of 650.</p>
Exactly! Harvard will not do well if they raise the bar to 3, 2 or 1%. In this Harvard entering class “10% are international, 20% are athletes, 13% are legacies, and 15% are URMs (2011)” the athletes and URMs and even some legacies (nearly 40% of class) may not do well if they are measured against the 1, 2 or 3% of their high school class.</p>