College Rankings by major

<p>Rugg’s environmental studies</p>

<p>LACs
Allegheny
Bates
Berry (GA)
Bethany (WV)
Bowdoin
Brenau
Bryn Mawr
Centenary
Clark
Colby
Connecticut C
Davis and Elkins
Denison
Dickinson
Doane
Drake
Dubuque
Earlham
Eckerd
Findlay
SUNY Fredonia
Green Mountain (VT)
Juniata
Kalamazoo
Lake Forest
Lynchburg (VA)
Macalester
MiddleburyMillsaps
Monmouth (IL)
New Mexico Inst Mining and Tech
UNC Ashville
Northland (WI)
Oberlin
Ohio Wesleyan
Pitzer
SUNY Plattsburgh
Ramapo
Randolph Macon
Ripon
Sacred Heart (CT)
St Anselm (NH)
St John’s (MN)
St Lawrence (NY)
St Michael’s (VT)
Salisbury State (MD)
College of Santa Fe
Sarah Lawrence
Shepard (WV)
Stanford (CA)
SUNY College of Environ Science & Forestry
Susquehanna
Valparaiso
Warren Wilson
Webster (MO)
Wesleyan (CT)
Western Washington
West Virginia Wesleyan
Westfield State
Whitman
U Wisconsin Steven’s Point</p>

<p>What's your opinion on using Ruggs/Gourman for ChemE?</p>

<p>collegehelp,</p>

<p>The biggest problem with Gourman is the lack of transparency in his process. And really, the service academy's for IR? That's a pretty meaningless ranking unless you want to be a commissioned officer.</p>

<p>The Chronicle list is ridiculously inaccurate. If we used that, MSU would be a top 5 business school. I love Temple, but top 5 in finance? If I showed that to the dean, he'd just laugh.</p>

<p>milki-
Gourman is better than Rugg's for engineering rankings. Gourman has a very defensible ranking for ChemE. Gourman has U Delaware in the top 10 where it belongs. But, if you are in Maryland, why not go to UMCP or Johns Hopkins?</p>

<p>Gourman Report rankings for undergraduate chemical engineering</p>

<p>U Minnesota
U Wisconsin
UC Berkeley
Cal Tech
Stanford
U Delaware
MIT
U Illinois U-C
Princeton U Houston
Purdue
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Cornell
U Texas Austin
Stevens Institute of Tech
U Penn
Carnegie Mellon
U Michigan
Rice
U Washington
U Mass Amherst
Iowa State
U Florida
U Rochester
SUNY Buffalo
Penn State U-P
Case Western
U Colorado Boulder
Washington U St Louis
Lehigh
Texas A&M
CUNY City C
Ohio State
Georgia Tech
NC State
Yale
RPI
Virginia tech
U Tennessee Knoxville
UVA
Columbia
U Arizona
Syracuse
U Utah
UCLA
U Oklahoma
U Maryland College park
Oregon State
Louisiana State Baton rouge
U Pittsburgh
U Iowa
Clarkson</p>

<p>Again, what makes any of Gourman's rankings tick? I have yet to see his methodology full spelled out.</p>

<p>Top undergrad IR at MIT? Give me a break. MIT's got a good poli sci department, but there are many better programs.</p>

<p>UCLAri-
The results of the Gourman methodology speak for themselves. You don't need to know all the details and weightings to see the essential validity of the rankings. But, here is the method as described by Gourman:</p>

<p>INTRODUCTION</p>

<p>Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book. </p>

<p>The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program's strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another. </p>

<p>These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task. </p>

<p>This book is intended for use by: </p>

<p>• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs .. </p>

<p>• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions ..
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today's higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education. </p>

<p>Method of Evaluation </p>

<p>Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are </p>

<p>occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response. </p>

<p>In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant. </p>

<p>Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations </p>

<p>and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that </p>

<p>will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the </p>

<p>methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have </p>

<p>consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our </p>

<p>research. </p>

<p>The Gourman Report's rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the "subject
matter" (the fields of study under evaluation), and the "students" (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves. </p>

<p>The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study. </p>

<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to "sub-fields" available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li><p>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </p></li>
<li><p>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </p></li>
<li><p>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </p></li>
<li><p>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</p></li>
<li><p>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </p></li>
<li><p>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </p></li>
<li><p>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</p></li>
<li><p>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</p></li>
<li><p>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </p></li>
<li><p>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </p></li>
<li><p>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I don't claim to be a particularly keen expert on IR, but I can say this much: as a graduate student in IR who got an BA in poli sci from a top 10 program... Gourman's IR ranking is awful. Just awful.</p>

<p>UCLAri, relax. I'm sure the program you attended is top notch. The MIT poli sci dept. is apparently good enough to have a professor quoted in the NY Times yesterday:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/world/asia/23japan.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/world/asia/23japan.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Russ456,</p>

<p>You're missing my point.</p>

<p>MIT is not necessarily a good place for an undergrad interested in poli sci to get a BA. It is probably far too rigorous for most social scientists, who may not want much quantitative training beyond single variable calculus and econometrics.</p>

<p>I'm saying that Gourman does a very poor job of ranking "undergrad IR." I already know my undergrad and grad programs are good. That's immaterial to this conversation.</p>

<p>Gourman report is hilarious. It uses things such as :</p>

<ol>
<li>Number of Students Enrolled</li>
<li>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice</li>
<li>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </li>
<li>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</li>
</ol>

<p>Every one of these critera (supposedly for undergraduate programs) favors programs with large graduate programs. </p>

<p>Gourman is garbage for undergrad rankings, its a shame they label themselves as such.</p>

<p>By the way, I know Samuel's work quite well. But one professor doesn't mean that you're going to have a good time as an undergrad anyway. Undergrads don't necessarily need the "best" professors. They need great teachers. Those lines do blur at times, but they're often not the same thing.</p>

<p>I have friends (future business majors) who say any Arts & Sci major isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And future A & S majors who say Business is a vocational major and beneath them. UCLAri... you were a polysci major? And now a grad student in Intl Relations? Where are you hoping this leads you?</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, if you are in Maryland, why not go to UMCP or Johns Hopkins?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well I want to go the best school I can get into (and one that's a "fit" for me). UMCP is a truly amazing place and it has some amazing things I'm looking for. But I don't want to go to college with the same people I go to High School with, that and I think a "stronger" school will help more in networking etc.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I was a poli sci major, and I am getting an MA in IR. I was originally hoping to go work for the government in some capacity. But after some pretty miserable experiences, I've decided to switch career tracks and go into either medicine or medical administration (I'll see how I feel after a year off of school.) However, either way, I will be able to apply my political savvy in some interesting ways. If I do become a doctor, I'm going to get involved with international medical organizations to help better worldwide healthcare.</p>