Can Someone help me find the US News and World Report on Top Undergraduate engineerin

College Search & Selection
41

<p>

Perhaps. After all, I don’t claim to have the only “real” opinion. I simply offered my opinion based on my own experiences, not other people’s opinions and not cherrypicked data. My undergrad education was excellent. From what I’ve seen/experienced, the undergrad education at UNC and UCLA is likewise excellent; the two top LACs attended by my sister and boyfriend also seem quite good. The undergrad education provided by my MA institution is extremely poor; that it was awarded such a low USNWR rank is to my mind not a coincidence.</p>

<p>

I am not entirely sure I agree. I think many professors that communicate material well are honestly not that interested in their students’ welfare. </p>

<p>Even conceding that point, however, I am not at all convinced it makes a difference. There is little to suggest that professors at top colleges are less dedicated to undergraduate teaching than those at other colleges. </p>

<p>Take, for example, the excellence in undergraduate teaching award for archaeology, awarded by the AIA. Of the universities represented, 7 of the 9 are top 60 universities (Brown, UNC, NYU, etc.), with one of them (Minnesota) winning twice. The other two universities are Arizona and U Missouri-St. Louis, the former of which has a top 5 archaeology program. Where are the archaeology professors at SIUC, U Toledo, and Coastal Carolina? Why aren’t they winning more awards, if they’re truly so focused on undergraduates? A similar pattern holds for history. Of the 11 university professors honored by the AHA for undergraduate teaching, 7 teach at top colleges (Columbia, Duke, Illinois, Hopkins, NYU, Indiana, Princeton). </p>

<p>Alternately, one can consider the US Professor of the Year awards. In the research university category, top 50 universities account for 9 awards in the last 17 years, and only one of the seventeen is not in the top 100 (Kansas State). When one considers that US News ranks ~280 universities, this is heavily disproportionate.</p>

<p>Even more disproportionate is the dominance of elite universities in the undergraduate teaching survey done by US News. (“These rankings are the schools whose faculty and administrators are committed to teaching undergraduate students in a high-quality manner. College presidents, provosts, and admissions deans were asked to nominate up to 10 colleges in their U.S. News Best Colleges ranking category with a ‘commitment to undergraduate teaching.’”) Only three (Clemson, Miami U, UMBC) of the 12 universities are not ranked in the top 30 or so by US News. This was even more glaring last year, when only Miami U made the top 11.</p>

<p>

Of course they are. Assistant professors anywhere are working to get tenure. Where differences come into play is a scholar being much more content to rest on his laurels as a tenured associate professor at Penn than as a similar professor at TAMU Commerce. Usually such professors don’t rest on their laurels, of course, but this idea that professors at top colleges are far more wrapped up in research than professors elsewhere is rather suspect.</p>

<p>

Well, anyone can teach a course, yes. The nature and content of that course, however, can vary quite a bit. For example, say you wanted to take a class on Egyptian archaeology. Would you want to take the course with (1) a scholar like Zahi Hawass, who has participated in numerous excavations and knows Egypt inside and out or (2) a professor at your local community college, who has been to Egypt perhaps once or twice in his career? Being charismatic and entertaining is all well and good, but there is no substitute for substantial knowledge of a subject.</p>

<p>There are essentially four types of professors. In order of desirability:
[ul][<em>]Type #1 Good researchers and good teachers – Found predominantly at top colleges.
[</em>]Type #2 Good teachers and poor researchers – Found predominantly at unselective colleges.
[<em>]Type #3 Good researchers and poor teachers – Found predominantly at top colleges.
[</em>]Type #4 Poor researchers and poor teachers – Found predominantly at unselective colleges. [/ul]
Top colleges dominate the best category, since they attract top researchers, of whom many are likely very good teachers. Weaker colleges populate the worst category, since they attract less able researchers, of whom many are likely terrible teachers. Moreover, while having a strong research background may improve one’s performance in the classroom due to intimacy with the subject, having a weak research background will only hurt an instructor, who has textbook but not hands on knowledge. </p>

<p>As for begging the question, I think it simply means that while Chicago may turn out a few duds, it turns out far fewer of them than other universities. Certainly Chicago has produced many more capable researchers in my field than, say, BYU or Temple. Also keep in mind that shoddy is relative - what’s subpar for a Harvard PhD student may well be above average for a PhD student at Iowa State. In my own field, at least, the best scholars come from the best programs, which are generally (though not always) at top colleges. I will not vouch for other fields. </p>

<p>

Could you please clarify?</p>

<p>For example, let’s say I’m a student wanting to major in anthropology. Penn offers a world class anthropology museum, good graduate seminars in a variety of areas if I want to challenge myself as an undergrad, a center that promotes and funds undergraduate research, and offerings in over 100 languages, many of which are quite obscure. ETSU offers about a half dozen undergraduate courses a semester and 5 languages; it has no special facilities or resources. Are you suggesting that motivation and dedication are more significant factors to an anthropology student than the availability of courses of interest, relevant language offerings, and good research facilities? What good are motivation and dedication if there’s no resources to take advantage of? Sure, a student at a weaker college may get a better education than a Harvard kid who sits on his rear and plays video games, but what are the odds of that? Provided they put in the same amount of effort, the Harvard kid has a much better chance of taking good and relevant courses, getting excellent research experience, etc. Curating an exhibit at the Fogg is much more impressive than curating an exhibit at the art gallery of Podunk U, and the latter student simply can’t emulate the same experience – not even if he claps his hands and really believes.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, if you’re motivated, you’ll be fine. As the studies I’ve pointed to show, when the discussion is focused on the quality of the education.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t ignore any such thing - and I’ve said that the prestige factor may help get a first job. Whether that is worth the significant difference in cost between highly ranked private schools and perfectly acceptable public schools where a motivated student can get an excellent education - that is something for each family to decide for itself - but it should not decide it on the basis of the false assumption that the quality of the education will be significantly different.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You said, “It is telling that the first 5 universities regarding salaries for graduates are all top 20 collegiate institutions … it’s an amazing reality.”</p>

<p>Sorry if I interpreted that to think you thought there was a causal relationship; although frankly, I’m still having difficulty understanding why you pointed out the relationship unless you were claiming that a caused b.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>You persist in implying that I’m arguing positions that I do not hold, then knocking those down. </p>

<p>I have never said that professors at top colleges are less dedicated that those at other colleges - I have said that I have seen no evidence that those at less selective colleges are less dedicated than those at more seletive colleges. I’m sorry, I simply can’t say it any more clearly than that.</p>

<p>Straw man up - straw man down.</p>

<p>As far as the undergraduate teaching awards are concerned, I’d want to see the criteria for them and understand the selection process before I commented on them. Are they based on measurable student outcomes, controlled for student capabilities?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I rather doubt the president of Harvard has an in-depth understanding of the level of commitment to undergraduate teaching of each college in Harvard’s category. Sorry, it’s just as invalid as the overall prestige-based USNWR rankings.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Whose idea would that be? Not mine - the sources I read indicate that the teachers at all research universities, of whatever rank, are far more concerned with research than with undergraduate education - with exceptions, of course, which I’m sure exist at every institution.</p>

<p>

[quote]

</p>

<p>Leaving aside the obvious comment that I suspect you’d have to look very far and wide to find a community college with such a course, before I could answer your question I’d want to know about the teaching ability of the eminent Egyptologist and about his commitment to sharing his knowledge with undergraduates.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So what are we arguing about? That’s what I’ve been saying.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Another point of agreement</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Controlled for capabilities of the students?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. I don’t care how many resources are available, if a student will not take advantage of them, what good are they?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>According to the study I cited, perhaps more common than many people assume.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>I haven’t claimed that. If you read my posts, I said that the study reported in “Academically Adrift” showed that there is difference between institutions - but far more difference between students within institutions. The conclusion is not the “all schools are academically the same,” but rather that a motivated and determined student can get a high quality education at almost any school and that a slacker can slide through and get a prestigious certificate at any school.</p>

<p>And what I’m talking about is not really what courses are available, or what other resources are available, although those are not completely irrelevant. But they are far less important than the development of critical thinking skills - which all colleges claim to develop, almost all college professors say is critically important, and what the study in “Academically Adrift” specifically measured. And it shows that at all colleges, there are students who show no measurable gain in critical thinking skills between the beginning of their freshman year and end of their sophomore year, and at all colleges, there are students who do show measurable gains.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>Then what does the following claim mean, since you appear to refuse to acknowledge that one or the other school may be academically better for a given student?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Critical thinking skills are not learned in a vacuum. A student who finds the pace of courses too slow to accommodate weaker students may not be challenged to think as much as s/he otherwise would have. A student who finds the pace of courses too fast may be overwhelmed and also get less than s/he is capable of.</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>It means exactly what it says - which is not “all schools are academically the same or equal for all students.” It says that for a student “who is motivated to wring everything they can out of an undergraduate education will be as well-served at NIU as at UIUC.” Not every student is “motivated to wring everything they can out of an undergraduate education.”</p>

<p>It may well be easier to slide through at NIU than UIUC (though the graduation rate at NIU, as at most non-flagship state schools, would indicate that it’s also awfully easy to flunk out). But I’m not talking about the sliders, I’m talking about the grinders.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The data shows that there are students at all schools who develop critical thinking skills. It also shows a significant correlation between those who take challenging courses (defined requiring 40 or more pages of reading a week and/or 20 pages of written assignments over the course of a semester) and those who develop critical thinking skills. Other factors strongly correlated with developing critical thinking skills, according to the study, are time spent in solitary study and amount of interaction with professors outside the classroom.</p>

<p>Therefore, one could conclude that a student who takes the most challenging courses available, studies hard, and interacts with his or her professors will become a critical thinker - at almost any college.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>Limiting it to the most motivated students, each student will see differences between the two schools; it is likely that one or the other will be academically better for a given motivated student. Or do you disagree?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Must be a humanities / social studies / business centered metric; 40 pages per week of a real analysis math book would be quite a challenge.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For some students, the most challenging courses available at some schools may not actually be that much of a challenge.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>If those are your standards for academic quality, then I suggest you focus on schools higher, not lower, in the USNWR rankings.</p>

<p>I’ve taken college and graduate level classes off and on for decades, at schools ranging from a sleepy little off-brand LAC to Harvard. I’ve known many college kids at a variety of schools. My own children, nieces and nephews have all been through college (at places ranging from directional state universities to selective LACs and Princeton). In most of the bread-and-butter liberal arts subjects that undergraduates take nearly everywhere (forget about Egyptology at Chicago, forget about HVAC repair at the local CC), there are significant differences in content and teaching approach between the average school and the tippy-top, highly selective LACs and universities. This is very much the case when it comes to quantity and quality of reading & writing assignments, classroom discussion, and interaction with faculty. (Don’t bother asking me if I can cite statistics and studies on what I’m about to share; for the most part I can’t; I suggest you “trust but verify” by asking around).</p>

<p>They are not all using the same textbooks. At some of the top schools, in many courses they don’t use textbooks at all. They use primary source materials even in introductory and intermediate courses. The top schools examine texts and data in smaller classes than their counterparts get at average state universities (the S:F and class size distribution data actually understate these differences at the introductory level). One of my relatives spent a year at UMass-Amherst, where she said all of her tests, all year in every course, were multiple-choice. At my own alma mater (a top 10 research university), exams were almost always in a short-answer essay format. They were graded by professors (not TAs) and returned with written comments. Written assignments were frequent, and again, graded by professors and returned with comment. 40 pages of reading per week (per course) would have been a very, very light week (unless the reading were in Greek or Chinese). When a professor asked a question about a 40-page reading assignment, it wouldn’t have been to test whether you’d read the material (because that was assumed); it was to probe how you’d thought about it.</p>

<p>Discussion classes are more common at the more selective schools. When my son and I compared a well-regarded public LAC in our state with a top-30 private LAC, we saw differences I hadn’t quite expected. The discussion classes at the less selective public school were larger; the professor asked what my S thought were fairly elementary, softball questions. He chose the private LAC (which is costing us :() and raves about the teaching quality. All his classes are small (always under 50, usually under 20). The discussion classes I got even as a freshman and sophomore usually were taught by senior faculty; they asked big, thought-provoking questions combined with detailed questions about the material. First year biology labs were small (~20 students) and taught, again, by a senior faculty member. My wife’s intro biology class at her state u. was taught to 900 students in a movie theater.</p>

<p>The few observations I’m sharing with you are just anecdotal evidence (from one guy on the internet, of course) but I think they tend to be corroborated by what data is available, by other anecdotal evidence … and by common sense. No, there is no guarantee that a top salary will buy a great teacher. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that when a school applies higher admission standards, hires more distinguished professors at higher salaries, and keeps the classes small, the students (and parents) will tend to demand more attention than they otherwise would.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>They’re not mine, they’re those of the researchers whose results I was citing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Such as?</p>

<p>I don’t dispute the argument that an LAC is better for most students than is a larger university - in fact, I agree with it, strongly. Not everyone can afford an LAC, however, and the data I’ve cited shows that a motivated and engaged student can get a high-quality education at almost any institution. And I have seen no evidence that the quality of the education is higher at a flagship U than at a non-flagship. More prestige, certainly; better facilities, perhaps; but better education, unproven.</p>

<p>And you don’t need a “top 30 LAC” to get the benefits of small class sizes and close interaction with faculty. We toured last summer a good but by no means “top 30” LAC; I asked the tour guide (a rising senior) what was the largest class she’s had. The answer: 28. At another school (technically a university but with the feel of a LAC, 2,800 undergrads and 200 graduate students, and as far as I know, not ranked), in a presentation by a biology professor said apologetically that the previous year they’d had to expand the freshman bio class to 45 students, the largest in the eight (IIRC) years she’d been there.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s because you keep redefining “quality of education” to exclude educational characteristics which do differ between different schools (e.g. how much content a given course includes, whether more challenging honors courses are available, selection of courses available in a subject).</p>

51

<p>I’ve yet to be shown that any of those things (to the extent they even really exist) affect the quality of the education available to a motivated and serious student.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, you are saying that learning at a faster or slower pace, or learning in a more or less challenging way (e.g. honors course), or having additional courses or subject matter available to learn does not affect the quality of education available to a given motivated and serious student, correct?</p>

53

<p>I’m saying that a motivated and engaged student can obtain a high quality education at almost any college, by seeking out the truly challenging courses, studying hard, and taking advantage of opportunities to interact with his or her professors. And I’ve cited data to back that up. Everything else is at least marginal and possibly irrelevant.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Class size data is available on the internet. It is detailed in the Common Data Set files (section I) of the many schools that publish them. I cannot prove from this data alone that it understates class size differences among introductory courses. I believe it does, based first on anecdotal stories about huge entry level classes at some schools, and second on the pattern of course enrollments as they move up in level. When a research university’s CDS shows a very large number of courses (3k-4k) I’m going to assume a disproportionate share of them are upper-level, low-enrollment courses reflecting the specialized interests of the professors, graduate students, and majors in the field. So these courses inflate the ratio of courses with < 20 students (which, even after this inflation, is still better at the more selective highly-ranked schools). For this not to be the case, there would have to be an equally rich variety of entry-level courses with low enrollments. Check the course catalogs at a few random large, directional state universities if you think that happens very often. I don’t.</p>

<p>As for reading loads, the frequency of discussion v. lecture classes, writing assignments, test formats, and so forth, I’m not aware of any good data that describe the differences I’m suggesting. It would be hard to gather. One thing you can do (which does take some digging) is look at the course syllabi that many professors post. </p>

<p>Here for example, is the first syllabus I came upon when Googling for history courses at the University of Chicago:
[PS215-World</a> History from 1914-45-Charles Lipson](<a href=“http://www.charleslipson.com/PS215-History-Syllabus.htm#TopicsReadingsSpeeches]PS215-World”>http://www.charleslipson.com/PS215-History-Syllabus.htm#TopicsReadingsSpeeches)
This is the “weekly readings” list for a course in political science / modern history. It is intended for advanced undergrads and graduates but there are no prerequisites. The list contains about 50 lines of primary and secondary source material including books, RealAudio speeches, and documents (not including even more material connected in links). The professor also posts detailed instructions for a 15-20 page writing assignment. (By the way, here’s the professor’s background page, which appears to describe a prolific researcher who is also very engaged in undergraduate education and recognized for high-quality teaching : [Homepage-Charles</a> Lipson](<a href=“Latest Articles - Charles Lipson”>Latest Articles - Charles Lipson))</p>

<p>Here, for comparison, are the required readings for history courses at my state’s public flagship:
[UM</a> Testudo | Schedule Of Classes](<a href=“http://www.sis.umd.edu/bin/soc?term=201108&crs=HIST]UM”>http://www.sis.umd.edu/bin/soc?term=201108&crs=HIST)
For “HIST266” (apparently an Honors course in modern US history, “restricted to Young Scholars students”) the reading list contains 2 books. </p>

<p>I don’t see any other US History courses on the UMd page with lists very much more extensive. There are a few honors and upper level courses listing 5-10.</p>

<p>Is this a fair comparison? Hard to say; maybe not. Dig around for yourself if this kind of comparison interests you.</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>From Andrew Roberts “The Thinking Student’s Guide to College,” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)</p>

<p>(It should be noted that the author is a faculty member at a so-called “top 20” university.)</p>

56

<p>^ So, for you “data” can only be “real” if you agree with it. Isn’t that the definition of a closed mind?</p>

57

<p>Show me a serious study (not a collection of cherry picked comparisons based on random information found on the Internet) by credentialed researchers that supports your contention that it is not possible for a motivated and serious student to get an equally high quality education at almost any college, and I’ll consider changing my mind. </p>

<p>I’ve posted references to two such serious studies and to a compilation of other such studies that support my position that it is possible. </p>

<p>I would think that someone who values open mindedness would at least reconsider his or her position, wouldn’t you?</p>

58

<p>Reconsideration is my middle name, but I wouldn’t bet on us coming to agreement on this one any time soon. I’ve looked at much of the “data” that you’ve listed. I believe it to be flawed, and misleading … but that’s just me and number of other very intelligent folks who’ve countered your argument in this thread, and I’d guess the majority of the educated world – that your guess might be very different here wont surprise me.</p>

59

<p>annasdad, if by “cherry picked comparisons” you’re referring to my post above, I can see how it might appear that way. Those were just two of the first sites I came across in a few minutes of Googling. I’m certainly not claiming this is great evidence of anything, just suggesting a line of inquiry. I do believe (though not with 100% metaphysical certainty) there are significant differences among colleges in the reading loads (quality and quantity), writing assignments, testing, and classroom discussion quality. I cited one example of what appears to be a well-designed, challenging course taught by a distinguished professor, one who seems to care about undergraduate instruction, at a so-called “top-20” university. If what I think you’re suggesting is true, it should be easy to find many examples of courses and professors at obscure colleges all over America that have similar characteristics.</p>

<p>I’m checking the Frostburg State University site (it’s not too far from where I live, so this is the first “obscure” college I’m checking). Their history department lists a course called “Honors: The Contemporary World in Historical Perspective”, roughly the same genre as the Chicago course I cited above. Here’s the syllabus: <a href=“http://faculty.frostburg.edu/hist/dean/SYLL111%20Honors%20%20spring%202001.pdf[/url]”>http://faculty.frostburg.edu/hist/dean/SYLL111%20Honors%20%20spring%202001.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It lists 5 required readings. There is a 4-page writing assignment and 2 exams (consisting of short essays, identification items, and multiple choice questions). To me, it appears to be less rich and challenging than the Chicago course described above … but for all I know the Frostburg students would describe their course on a survey as “most challenging”. How would your cited study control for possible differences in student ability or “pain thresholds” for challenging work? </p>

<p>I’m open to persuasion that a hard working, motivated student can wring more out of HIST111 at Frostburg State than a slacker would get out of PS215 at Chicago. I’m also open to persuasion that a fairly hard-working, fairly motivated B+ history student won’t necessarily get 2x the value out of a history education at Chicago than he’d get out of a history education costing half as much at Frostburg State. Is that all you’re arguing?</p>

<p>What about a really talented, outstanding, hard-working and motivated history student from a family rich enough that the tuition difference hardly matters? Are you suggesting there is so little difference in academic quality that he may as well flip a coin?</p>

60

<p>@colm, As far as I can see, nobody here has challenged the data or the consistency of the conclusions with the observations, only countered with essentially anecdotal and seat-of-the-pants “analysis” of factors with no proven correlation to student achievement. If you have criticisms to offer of the research methodology or can point out inconsistencies in the conclusions the researchers have drawn, by all means, fire away.</p>