<p>
</p>
<p>Back to my last question then, how do YOU measure undergraduate teaching? Besides taking your word for it, please convince us that your capped statement is true.</p>
<p>btw: Just bcos it's private, I would recommend Duke over Mich (or Cal) at OOS rates. I just don't believe that the large publics offer a great value proposition at OOS prices, in comparison to high quality private colleges. OTOH, Mich over USC is an easy call.</p>
<p>PA of Harvard 4.9
PA of Michigan 4.5
PA of Duke 4.4</p>
<p>That says it all to me. By definition Duke and Michigan are peers. Harvard is a cut above both. Duke is not a cut above Michigan. Sorry. By the way, Michigan's retention rate is like 96% with 26,000 undergrads. It's funny how Michigan for decades was always considered a top ten school. It was based on PA and not all of the other slanted stats that EAD and hawkette always like to point out. Perception is reality when it comes to prestige.</p>
<p>bluebayou. I agree with what you say up to a certain extent. It depends on what disciplines you were looking to take classes in. A top 5 department/college at a state school should trump a department not rated in the top 25 of a private school for a student if he/she is really looking for the best quality available.</p>
<p>That's funny that you think that rjkofnovi because no one I know considers the University of Michigan to be a legitimate contender for a top 10 school. It's on the lower end of being a top 20 school at best. Its student body quality pales in comparison to those of its "peer" private schools, it has very low selectivity and it has far less academic resources to spend on students on a per capita basis. I can tell you from personal knowledge, having attended an in-state feeder high school to UM, the kids who opted to attend private institutions were much more intelligent/qualified on average than the ones we sent to UM. The only reason I remember hearing from kids who turned down privates to go to UM was financial costs. The only school kids pick Michigan over on a regular basis, at least in-state, is Cornell which has similar selectivity and student body strength but slightly better reputation.</p>
<p>Duke is a legitimate top 10 school and is perhaps even justified as being a labeled a top 5 school like it was several years back. You rely far too much on Peer Assessment, a fairly inaccurate statistical measure as I have explained many times. US News takes many more factors other than PA into account while compiling a comprehensive and nationally-recognized ranking system. It has Harvard at #2, Duke at #8 and Michigan tied at #25. Most intelligent people would see a clear difference between these three schools.</p>
<p>
How is it a "fairly inaccurate statistical measure"?</p>
<p>It's an opinion poll asking which schools have the most distinguished academic programs. Are you calling the collective opinion of over 2,000 academics who completed the survey inaccurate?</p>
<p>EAD, how come all the people you know don't think of Michigan is a top 10 university and yet, the entire academic world and the enitre corporate world think it is? Given the choice between getting the respect from your acquaintences or from the entire academic and professional world, I would rather go for the latter. You have yet to show me a single instance where the academic or professional world actually rate Duke above Michigan by any significant measure. All you can do is point to statistics, which, unfortunately, prove nothing. I realize to the uneducated or the inexperienced, stats mean a lot, but take it from the wise, you can never measure the quality of education statistically. And by "the wise and experienced", I am not referring to myself. I am no more qualified to pass judgment than you. I do not have a PhD, I have not worked in Academe for 40 years and I have not worked closely with thousands of professors and students from dozens of different universities during that span of time. I am referring to men and women like Gerhard Casper, a Yale educated scholar who has taught at the University of Chicago and later became President of Stanford. In his 1996 criticism of the USNWR, he had this two say about Michigan and Cal:</p>
<p>"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27."</p>
<p>Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996</p>
<p>Gerhard Casper, and the thousands of men and women who make up the peer assessment score are far more knowledgeable than you or I. Only the most arrogant of teenagers would assume that he knows more than the thousands of men and women who have, for decades, paid their dues and shaped the education system we both enjoyed.</p>
<p>"PA of Michigan 4.5
PA of Duke 4.4</p>
<p>That says it all to me."</p>
<p>So, the smarter students are consistently choosing the lesser school? That seems like an inefficient system to me, which is, of course, why it isn't true. </p>
<p>I also don't agree that you will be only "hanging out with the smart kids". To me, you have to measure it against the average student at each school, unless they are going to starting grouping dorms by SAT score. </p>
<p>Alex, I don't know where you're getting this top 10 "corporate ranking" from. I have worked at five companies in the corporate world and never known anyone to regard UMichigan as a top 10 UG school. Having friends at both Goldman and Lehman, their analyst resume books did not show UMichigan as top 10 most represented as you have claimed; not to mention the firms where I have worked. Also, a top 10 academic rating is of the professors, not the students.</p>
<p>The endless support of PA seems ridiculous to me. I would argue the president of the University of Idaho knows less about the relative differences of Duke vs UMichigan than the average person on this forum. It's just not his job to know or care about these things; so why should I be following a ranking that is made up 25% of the subjective guesses of the uninformed instead of trying to formulate some type of ranking comprised of what my priorities are instead?</p>
<p>gellino:</p>
<p>funny you should mention the Prez at Idaho. He just happened to pass thru Michigan and Cal. I would guess he knows a little something about those two. :D</p>
<p>Evil: how does one evaluate undergrad education again? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides smaller classes, other evidence is....?</p>
<p>Alexandre, you give way too much credit to the presidents, provosts and chancellors of America's colleges. They are as clueless as we are regarding the differences between top-tier universities like Penn, Duke and Michigan. The job of Gerhard Casper is to enhance the quality of the educational resources and monitor the quality of the undergraduate education at Stanford, not to pass judgment on the academic reputation of Duke and Michigan. Just because he as worked in academia for decades, that doesn't mean that most of his perceptions of educational quality and prestige are any less biased or subjective than a layman. He only knows the inner specifics of the type of education being offered by Chicago, Yale and Stanford. I have read many articles critizing PA since most college presidents admit that their responses are mostly "guesswork".</p>
<p>did you ever take a look at MIT open courseware? do the classes on there look small?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are you talking about? Harvard, Stanford and MIT have much more undergraduate focus than Michigan or Berkeley. I think these schools are known more for their graduate programs in comparison to Yale, Dartmouth or Duke but still have smaller class sizes and better retention rates than Berkeley or Michigan. I don't need to improve Duke's image through my statements because the numbers speak for themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You missed my point. On this board, you have been consistantly arguing that schools like UMich or Berkeley are inferior choices, compared to privates, because they are more research-oriented and there is less interaction between faculty and students. Further, you went on to say that the presence of famous faculty is rather a bad thing for a university to have, because of similar reasons.</p>
<p>Then, that suggests that in your point of view, research-driven schools like Stanford, Harvard, and MIT would not be an ideal option for any undergrads. Instead, you would think that schools that are ideal are Amherst, Dartmouth, and others. Harvard, for example, has been criticised by the media and its students for the reasons you described: too grad school focused, not enough interaction with faculty, and other numerous reasons. However, no one says that Harvard is a poor undergrad choice overall. It may lack in certain areas compared to other LACs or the like, but we know that it offers top notch education regardless of those few weaknesses. In fact, the majority of the students look past these flaws at Harvard, and yet Harvard education is the most covetted prize for many, and most students choose Harvard or Stanford over Dartmouth, Amherst, Williams, etc. </p>
<p>Then, back to the question, why single out Umichigan and Berkeley? Yeh, they do have several weaknesses. But, to suggest that their weaknesses take over and make them inferior choices is stepping out of line. The concept of inferiorty and superiority is a relative and subjective term, and some may actually prefer the environmental setting of big publics compared to small privates.</p>
<p>Harvard and Stanford ARE MUCH DIFFERENT ANIMALS than Michigan or Berkeley. At Harvard and Stanford, your peers will be the future world-class politicians, scientists, mathematicians, etc. The pure talent of the student body alone should be enough for anyone who seriously cares about their education to attend. Furthermore, Harvard and Stanford are often much, much cheaper than these state schools because of their incredible financial aid programs. One of my friends is going to Harvard this year and his total expenses to attend are going to be less than UMich in-state and he got a half-ride to Michigan. Also, the academic resources that Harvard or Stanford offer their students are honestly mind-boggling. Harvard has so much money to spend on its students that a student can go and do service anywhere in the world or pursue a service-learning program and the school will completely pay for it. Duke offers its students the same incredible service opportunities in a program known as DukeEngage. No matter how much initiative a Michigan student takes, the school will never afford him/her this type of opportunity since UMich simply doesn't have that kind of money to spend on each student.</p>
<p>"Alex, I don't know where you're getting this top 10 "corporate ranking" from. I have worked at five companies in the corporate world and never known anyone to regard UMichigan as a top 10 UG school. Having friends at both Goldman and Lehman, their analyst resume books did not show UMichigan as top 10 most represented as you have claimed; not to mention the firms where I have worked. Also, a top 10 academic rating is of the professors, not the students."</p>
<p>This may come as a newsflash but there is more to the corporate world than investment banking. There are actually companies out there that you know, make things! And sell things! That real people use on an everyday basis! And those companies certainly put Michigan on a high plane, and are going to give both a Duke grad and a Michigan grad an interview, and then, it's up to THEM, not their school, to carry this distance.</p>
<p>Sometimes I wonder if I've stepped back into Gordon Gekko and "Greed is good." Where do all these people come from who think of corporate America as Goldman Sachs and nothing else?</p>
<p>Alexandre. normally I completely respect (although don't always agree with) your opinion here but I REALLY need to call you out on this one:</p>
<p>"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27."</p>
<p>This is so wrong on so many levels and quite frankly, it draws directly from the liberal rule book of argument. This guy might be the president of Stanford, but he is a FREAKING clown. </p>
<p>Let me explain. He says that Michigan and Berkeley should be top 6 or so and US News has it wrong. Ok, I will entertain the argument. Oh, wait that was his argument. In fact it is worse...he says these two schools should be top 10 solely because HE says they should be. That's it, that's his argument. Period. He is using his influence as the president of Stanford to proclaim something as true. He even has the gall to say you should just chuck all quantifiable data out the window. In other words, Michigan and Berkeley are top 10 because I said so and facts and data be damned. Oh, it gets even better. He bashes US News for using SAT scores as a measure of College quality. Last time I checked HIS own institution has a median SAT score in the top 5 or 10 in the world. Ya, the SAT scores Stanford uses to judge it's own student body can't be used by an outsider to judge the student body. Let's see the most accomplished well rounded student in your high school with a 1200 SAT TRY to get into Stanford. And don't give me the anecdotal token example, they are few and completely anomalous. That is hypocritical at it's core. </p>
<p>Oh but it gets even better, he talks about how US News should recognize that Cal is giving more value added because they grade tough yet his own school may be the worst institution in college when it comes to grade inflation. Using his logic, Stanford should drop significantly due to an easy curricula. i mean, that is unless Stanford students are that much brighter than Cal students...NOT. </p>
<p>In summary, this letter is a joke. Stanford is admitting students and running it's school under the same criteria being measured by US News and reaping the benefits of the ranking. However, the president is sitting on his sanctimonious perch and castigating US News for measuring quality based on the paradigm Universities use to tacitly rank themselves. For example, suppose EVERYTHING at U-Chicago remained the same but over 5 years their SAT score dropped 150 points, while other institution remained constant. There is NO WAY the peer score would remain constant. This guy is a shining example of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude embedded into most of academia today. US News should have published this letter and dissected it in the annual ranking edition and embarrassed Stanford. Ugh, I can't believe no one called him on this. Do they teach Logic and argument at Stanford? They must...</p>
<p>By the way, I'm not a fan at all of the way US News does the rankings, I think S/F ratio is worthless and peer assessment is given way too much credit. However, I think the ranking can be logically improved. I don't think this will happen though or schools like Michigan and Berkley might illegitimately make big leaps and schools like Florida and UMBC would also ump from where the US News is designed to keep these schools down.</p>
<p>Was it really necessary to take an unfounded swipe at liberals? Come on.</p>
<p>ead:</p>
<p>I don't disagree with your post #73, but you appear to be changing your tune. Either H&S (and others) "more focus on undergrads" or they don't. Note, your earlier post did not say they have more money to spend on undergrads.....</p>
<p>I do not attend Duke so why would I feel better from saying that Duke > Umich? On the other hand, you do attend Umich so yes, there is a huge motivation on your part to misinform others and to spread Umich bias as to it being equal to Duke.</p>
<p>So lfecollegeguy, what elitist school do you attend? Michigan across the board has more higher rated departments than Duke at the undergraduate level. Michigan is a peer of Duke. In many ways, it's higher rated than Duke. Gee you people are thick.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only school kids pick Michigan over on a regular basis, at least in-state, is Cornell which has similar selectivity and student body strength but slightly better reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Similar selectivity." Hilarious.</p>
<p>For the record, I believe the University of Michigan is a fine school and anybody can get a wonderful education at either Duke, Cornell, or the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only school kids pick Michigan over on a regular basis, at least in-state, is Cornell which has similar selectivity and student body strength but slightly better reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am getting tired of talking to this person. It seems that this person is unable to take in what others have been saying about certain schools, especailly Cornell, so, I think that I am out of this discussion. (for the record, Cornell's selectivity does not lag behind Duke's. Also, I am aware that you were waitlisted or rejected from Cornell yourself last year.)</p>