<p>I basically want an updated version of this list:<a href="http://www.cefns.nau.edu/Academic/CS/misc_docs/UG_engineering_ranking_08.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.cefns.nau.edu/Academic/CS/misc_docs/UG_engineering_ranking_08.pdf</a></p>
<p>I just want the undergraduate (NON DOCTORAL granting) list...not the one with MIT/Stanford etc etc at the top of the list.</p>
<p>For engineering please! Thank you guys so much!</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvey Mudd College 4.4</li>
<li>Rose Hulman Institute of Technology 4.4</li>
<li>United States Military Academy 4.2</li>
<li>Cooper Union 4.1</li>
<li>California Polytechnic State University-SLO 4.0</li>
<li>United States Airforce Academy 4.0</li>
<li>United States Naval Academy 4.0</li>
<li>Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering 3.9</li>
<li>Bucknell University 3.8</li>
<li>Villanova University 3.7</li>
<li>Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (FL) 3.6</li>
<li>Milwaukee School of Engineering 3.6</li>
<li>Baylor University 3.5</li>
<li>Swarthmore College 3.5</li>
<li>United States Coast Guard Academy 3.5</li>
<li>California State Polytechnic University-Pomona 3.4</li>
<li>Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (AZ) 3.4</li>
<li>Lafayette College 3.4</li>
<li>Rowan University 3.4</li>
<li>Union College 3.4</li>
<li>The Citadel 3.3</li>
<li>Miami University (OH) 3.3</li>
<li>Santa Clara University 3.3</li>
<li>Smith College 3.3</li>
<li>Trinity University (TX) 3.3</li>
<li>Virginia Military Institute 3.3</li>
<li>Bradley University 3.2</li>
<li>Gonzaga University 3.2</li>
<li>Kettering University 3.2</li>
<li>Loyola Marymount University 3.2</li>
<li>San Jose State University 3.2</li>
<li>United States Merchant Marine Academy 3.2</li>
<li>University of Colorado-Colorado Springs 3.2</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Dearborn 3.2</li>
<li>University of San Diego 3.2</li>
<li>Valparaiso University 3.2</li>
</ol>
<p>Do you have the list to the top 50 by any chance? I would like to see all the other CSU campuses.</p>
<p>wait nevermind, I was able to find the full chart from surfing through google for a few mins. </p>
<p>See here if you’d like:</p>
<p><a href=“http://cpe.calpoly.edu/media/uploads/resources/2011/10/20/14/41/US_New_and_World_Report_Information1.pdf[/url]”>http://cpe.calpoly.edu/media/uploads/resources/2011/10/20/14/41/US_New_and_World_Report_Information1.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you’d Google another minute (or less), you could find this one:</p>
<p>[Best</a> Undergraduate Engineering Schools | Top Undergraduate Engineering Programs | US News Best Colleges](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering)</p>
<p>(usnwr+undergraduate+engineering)</p>
<p>And, of course, the USNWR ranking is about as scientific, and about as valid, as a ouija board.</p>
<p>The USNWR rankings are hardly the end-all of college decision-making. They are however far more scientific than a ouija board. Most of the criteria are data-driven. The criteria and weights are published for anyone to see and criticize. And the results are repeatable.</p>
<p>There is little doubt in my mind that, in general, the top 10 of 100 schools on a USNWR ranking list are academically superior to the bottom 10. The factors USNWR measures (class size, admit rates, average test scores, faculty compensation, graduation rates) are all relevant proxies for academic quality in my opinion (and, apparently, in the opinion of other people besides Robert Morse). We can quibble with each metric individually but collectively they seem to work as academic quality indicators. No, they aren’t necessarily relevant to personal “fit” or affordability. However, I think it’s a fair assumption that, while most of us care about academic quality, not all of us care one way or the other about weather, the Greek scene, sports, or even school size.</p>
<p>As an alternative to the rankings, you can try a college search engine like this one:
[College</a> MatchMaker - Type of School](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)
Of course, such a site is framing the search process according to its own criteria, often around binary personal choices that many students aren’t ready to make. The result set won’t necessarily be better (may well be worse) than if you’d matched your stats against a US News list (e.g. the #N-M national universities), then filtered out the results based on “fit” criteria (size, location, etc.)</p>
<p>The USNWR rankings amount to something like what computer scientists call a question-focused dataset. This is a principled alternative to boolean queries against a much larger, heterogenous parent data set (which is about what you get with “College MatchMaker”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a saying that was common back in the 70s - maybe it still is. “Garbage in, garbage out.” When you start with data that has no proven correlation to the quality of the education available, the results are meaningless - and just as “scientific” as a ouija board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, you forgot one, a biggie - peer and high school guidance counselor rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we talking about opinions? Or “science?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on what “scientific” study?</p>
<p>^ I don’t think factors like class size or admission stats are “garbage”. One reason I don’t is because so many of these factors, in addition to the subjective peer and guidance counselor rankings, all point to the same usual suspects. So do outcomes studies (per capita medical and law school admissions, earnings at entry level or mid-career, per capita PhD completions, graduate fellowships, the alma maters of Rhodes scholars and Nobel laureates, etc.) They all point toward similar sets of so-called “elite” schools. There are interesting variations in the precise ordering; in some cases a few surprising schools do enter or exit the result set. But generally, when you alter the criteria (assuming you aren’t introducing some really far-fetched or clearly non-academic factors), you don’t suddenly see obscure regional colleges displacing those usual suspects at the head of the pack. Is this due to some vast conspiracy among deluded, unscrupulous college professors at a few schools to rig their US News rankings? I kinda doubt it.</p>
<p>I could be persuaded that purely subjective factors (school size, weather, distance from home) … and cost … are a good basis for most people to choose a college. After all, most students will just choose a nearby, affordable school that has the programs they want. Even if you have the stats and the money to choose differently, there is no guarantee that spending more to attend a super selective high-ranking school will make you happier or more successful. For that matter, subjective “fit” criteria aren’t any guarantee, either.</p>
<p>The OP can decide for himself. Now he has his US News report. It’s up to him to make of it what he will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both are easily manipulated, ergo, they’re garbage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are they controlled for the qualifications of the incoming classes? Can you cite one that is?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed - after all, you and I are just two anonymous posters on the Internet; why should the OP give either of us any credibility at all?</p>
<p>But perhaps he would be interested in the opinion of the dean of admissions at Yale:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Looking</a> Beyond the College Rankings | Yale College Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings]Looking”>http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings) with emphasis added</p>
<p>I’ve seen that segment of usnwr many times before. The only problem is; that it only displays the top 10 (I believe I need to be subscribed to the website in order to view the full list). </p>
<p>Which is why I needed to do a little more digging than that to find the particular information that was relevant to my needs.</p>
<p>^^ Are we to believe there is some mysterious je ne sais quoi about a Yale education that cannot possibly be subjected to measured comparisons with other universities? Well, maybe there is. But how does one begin to assess a feature like “ease of access to faculty” without measuring the main factor that influences the availability of faculty, namely, the number of faculty relative to the number of students? Of course the S:F ratios can be manipulated. Are they in fact manipulated? I can’t speak for all the colleges out there. My own observations, and reports from people I trust, suggest that the class of schools that tend to do worse by this measure do in fact tend to have larger classes, with less easy access to faculty, than the class of schools that tends to do better. My son’s LAC, for example, reports in its CDS file that zero classes have 50 or more students. And he tells me that, after two and a half years, he has never observed a class with as many as 50 students. Colleges could not pull the wool over students’ and parents’ eyes about a measurement like this without soon being exposed.</p>
<p>You raise an interesting issue about “outcomes” that has been discussed before on CC. You’re right, it’s hard always to say to what extent these are selection effects versus educational treatment effects. I’m inclined to believe that schools that performs best on some (such as per capita PhD production) may be exerting significant treatment effects, while schools that perform best on others (such as law and med school placement) are for the most part telegraphing a selection effect of the college admission process. So, it’s complicated. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think data-driven rankings represent an improvement over the days when all most people had to go on was cafeteria gossip or the opinion of Aunt Martha about which colleges have the best “name”. If the data is imperfect, the remedy is more and better data (along with careful assessment of any factors important to you that data can’t possibly capture). </p>
<p>By all means, be skeptical of the rankings. Be equally skeptical of people who tell you the measured quality factors don’t matter, that anybody by dint of effort can get a great education at the cheapest, closest college despite huge classes, crummy facilities, poorly paid faculty, low admission standards, and dismal graduation rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The selection and treatment effects are not necessarily independent. For example, a school whose worst student is still pretty good can set a higher minimum standard of rigor in its classes than a school which wants to accommodate a worst student of much lower academic ability. This does not necessarily mean that it will do so in every (or any) subject, though. Also, some departments may be less willing to accommodate the worst students than others (e.g. math departments are probably among the least likely to “dumb down” majors’ course work to accommodate weak students, but business and various social studies departments seem to have that reputation at many schools).</p>
<p>However, differences in course content and rigor are sometimes observable by inspection of course catalogs and syllabi from different schools. For example, a 12 credit three semester introductory CS course sequence at a state flagship university may cover the same material as a 17 credit five semester introductory CS course sequence at a mid-level state university in the same state. This does not mean that the mid-level school is “bad”, but a highly motivated and capable student there may want to consider taking more credits per semester in order to get the most education s/he can while there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how available are those faculty members to undergraduate students? Or do you have some ranking that measures that? Or would you claim that that doesn’t matter? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact remains: if there was a way to quantify the quality of education delivered by a college, somebody by now certainly would have done it. But the best I have seen is the study reported in “Academically Adrift” and based on the CLA, which shows that while there is variation in development of critical thinking skills between colleges, there is much more variation within colleges - and that result tracks with the results of the much more broadly administered NSSE, which measures student behaviors that tend to lead to achieving a high quality education, and that also shows much more variation within colleges than between colleges. (And the “Academically Adrift” study shows correlation between success on the CLA and predictive behaviors on the NSSE.)</p>
<p>So be as skeptical as you want, but the available data appears to show that a bright, motivated student can get a quality education at almost any college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You like to bring up the CLA and such, but the usual headline claim is that math and science students do the best (though differences shrink as more student and school characteristics are controlled). However, math and science are also weak at many schools, from low selectivity public schools where majors like physics are being cut due to lack of students, to high selectivity private LACs that have limited offerings to begin with. So the bright, motivated student interested in math and science needs to be more selective about which schools to attend in order to get educational fulfillment in his/her chosen major.</p>
<p>Clearly, any student with a definite major in mind needs to make sure that his major is adequately supported at the colleges on his or her list. But take, just for example, UIUC and Northern Illinois University; both have extensive math programs and offer doctoral-level graduate degrees in math. Obviously, UIUC is ranked higher (at least overall, and I would presume for math). But there is no evidence of which I’m aware that a bright, committed undergraduate math major who is determined to get a good education can get a better one at UIUC than at NIU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but what are the odds for the student at a top-ranked and well endowed school, as compared to the student at a third-tier lackluster one.</p>
<p>Someone trying to understand school to school differentials can get a nice picture by looking at the game board more simply than focusing on the convoluted methodologies of the various rankings (though the some rankings systems have limited value). To simplify: the student at a top-20 school will have professors who know their subject inside and out. They’ll live in a sea of the brightest students to study with and befriend. They’ll have access to labs, and other facilities, that dwarf the third-tier school in quantity and quality. They will have available outside-of-class support systems that the lack-luster students can only have in their dreams. I would admit that an extremely rare third-tier school student could excel if they were exceedingly determined and on a sustained mission to hit the books in earnest 7 days a week. However, the vast majority of students from a top-20 college are likely come out of their four years with a huge leg up in terms academic and vocational tools and experience. Additionally, this high caliber experience will have been more naturally acquired from close interaction with the brightest of folks who “knew their stuff” more thoroughly, and in a mode that has greater clarity.</p>
<p>Most thoughtful people would choose the top ranked school … if they were being honest with themselves. The odds for them are comparatively better to an incredibly large degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it does matter. However, I also think that at most schools that report small classes, and whose other statistics are strong, faculty members are in fact more available than at schools with weaker numbers. The Common Data Set reports more than just S:F ratios. It reports class size distributions in some detail. If a residential college reports that 2/3 of its undergraduate classes have fewer than 20 students, I take that as a good sign. If it’s a school with high admission standards, I assume the students (and their parents) will expect professors to be available. </p>
<p>But, if you’re concerned that a good S:F ratio might be masking too much attention to graduate students and research, and if faculty attention is especially important to you, then choose a LAC. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that unusual people can and do rise above all sorts of less-than-optimal circumstances. Having risen above them, it then seems to be natural for many of them to want to improve on those circumstances for their children. Hence the slow human rise from pond scum to our conversation here on College Confidential.</p>
<p>Maybe you’ve read the Krueger-Dale study. The one outcome it addresses is income. The jury seems to be out still on interpreting and verifying their findings.
[Study</a> Hacks Features: Life After College](<a href=“http://calnewport.com/blog/category/features-life-after-college/page/3/]Study”>Features: Life After College Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Cal Newport)
[Why</a> It’s Worth It To Send My Kid to Yale - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-38740614/why-its-worth-it-to-send-my-kid-to-yale/?tag=mwuser]Why”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-38740614/why-its-worth-it-to-send-my-kid-to-yale/?tag=mwuser)</p>
<p>Not that income is the only outcome to care about in a college. The purpose of a college is to produce knowledge, not money. I agree, it is very very hard to measure how well that is done.</p>
<p>@eng1neer – Let’s bring the topic back to your questions. If the CSU system is your goal then you cannot do any better than Cal Ply SLO or Cal Poly Pomona. both schools are fantastic and I highly recommend them. I pulled this from another post on CC. It is older but still useful. It dates from 2008:</p>
<p>Here’s from USNWR for undergrad institutions, all of engineering. I’ve included some California private colleges as well just to have a complete list.</p>
<ol>
<li>Cal Poly–San Luis Obispo * 4.0</li>
<li>Calif. State Poly. Univ.–Pomona * 3.3</li>
<li>San Jose State University (CA)* 3.3</li>
<li><p>Santa Clara University (CA) 3.2</p></li>
<li><p>Loyola Marymount University (CA) 3.1</p></li>
<li><p>California State U.–Los Angeles * 3.0</p></li>
<li><p>California State U.–Northridge * 2.9</p></li>
<li><p>California State U.–Long Beach * 2.8</p></li>
<li><p>California State U.–Sacramento * 2.8</p></li>
<li><p>University of the Pacific (CA) 2.7</p></li>
<li><p>California Maritime Academy * 2.6</p></li>
<li><p>California State U.–Fullerton * 2.6</p></li>
<li><p>California State Univ.–Chico * 2.5</p></li>
<li><p>Humboldt State University (CA)* 2.5</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My kid goes to Cal Poly SLO for mechanical engineering and absolutely LOVES it. I cannot tell you how grateful we are for the program. What had us go with Cal Poly was the hands on learn by doing teaching methodology. Either Cal Poly will serve you well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the professors at a non-top-20 school don’t “know their subject inside and out?” Even if they have PhDs, they are not qualified to teach bright and motivated undergraduates?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you done a survey of so-called “third tier” colleges and determined that their labs are by and large inadequate for supporting undergraduate education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I’m not talking about lackluster students. Second, stories abound of students at top universities unable to get more than a few minutes with their advisers and undergraduates’ contact with marquee name profs limited to sitting in lecture halls with 500 other kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, the limited evidence available does not support that view. It shows that serious students exist at colleges at every level, and slackers also exist at colleges at every level. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that “the vast majority of students from a top-20 college are likely come out of their four years with a huge leg up in terms academic and vocational tools and experience.”</p>