<p>Wisconsin went from 38 to 35. There are a bunch tied at 35 (5 I think)</p>
<p>"As high as it is rated, it would never, ever be considered as a viable for option for the majority of American college-bound students."</p>
<p>As if the other top 25 schools are a viable option for the majority of American college-bound students? Realistically, those schools are only an option for a tiny percentage...Cal Tech's not really so different, is it?</p>
<p>My comment about Caltech not being a viable option for most students, was directed not at its admission rate (obviously all 25 are nearly impossible to get into), but at its limited environment. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if Caltech was ranked #1 in the world, I'd be surprised if all that many students would be remotely interested in applying, because it is so small, so male-dominant, so non-URM-diverse, so devoid of non-math/science majors, and so limited in its sports scene. I don't think the same can be said of the other 24; they seem to be much more well-rounded schools.</p>
<p>My Alma Mater refused to fill out the US news Survey!!! Good for them :)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>My comment about Caltech not being a viable option for most students, was directed not at its admission rate (obviously all 25 are nearly impossible to get into), but at its limited environment. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if Caltech was ranked #1 in the world, I'd be surprised if all that many students would be remotely interested in applying, because it is so small, so male-dominant, so non-URM-diverse, so devoid of non-math/science majors, and so limited in its sports scene. I don't think the same can be said of the other 24;<< </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The same can be said of MIT and Harvey Mudd, and they are both highly-ranked on their respective lists.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>they seem to be much more well-rounded schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Since when is being well-rounded a requirement for a high ranking? The service academies are highly-ranked, and they can hardly be called well-rounded schools. There should be room for specialized schools at the high end of the rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same can be said of MIT and Harvey Mudd,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it can't. HM is not on the same list, and MIT is 4 times larger, close in M/F ratio, racially diverse, 18% non-math/science majors, and it has a football team. It is actually quite well-rounded.</p>
<p>I never said well-rounded was a requirement. Obviously, it is not. I was questioning whether it should be, because it is not logical to me that a u would be ranked as one of the top schools in country/world when it does not even appeal to most students.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>No it can't. HM is not on the same list, and MIT is 4 times larger, close in M/F ratio, racially diverse, 18% non-math/science majors, and it has a football team. It is actually quite well-rounded.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>18% non-math/science majors means that 82% of the students ARE math/science majors. You call that well-rounded? </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I was questioning whether it should be, because it is not logical to me that a u would be ranked as one of the top schools in country/world when it does not even appeal to most students.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Why should appealing to most students be a requirement for a high academic ranking? Wide appeal is just a reflection of simple popularity. Why should popularity with students matter at all in rankings of academic quality? How about having wonderful faculty, terrific resources, and a high concentration of some of the smartest students on the planet? That's got to be a lot more legitimate basis for ranking that mere wide appeal.</p>
<p>Well, at least MIT has 800 non-math/science majors. Caltech only has 45.</p>
<p>I wasn't proposing that "mere wide appeal" be the only criterion, just that it ought to be considered. The rankings call these the "Best" national universities. It doesn't call them the "Highest Academic Ranking" universities. To me, if something is the "Best," you would expect that a lot of people would want to be a part of it.</p>
<p>for the record, our incoming class is 40% women, which is a significant improvement!</p>
<p>"where's UW-Madison?"</p>
<p>It's in Madison, Wisconsin.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
"where's UW-Madison?"</p>
<p>It's in Madison, Wisconsin.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHAHA. kudos for humor :)</p>
<p>So you think that percentage of "under-represented minorities" is really one of the largest determinants of how good a school is, Bay? I honestly think that's ridiculous. It's certainly not something I even considered in choosing schools. I'd much rather be at a school like Caltech (which has plenty of diversity, I might add... you just don't seem to care about "well-represented minorities") where there is no affirmative action in admissions than at a school with higher percentages of URMs due to AA in admissions (like MIT). </p>
<p>What makes a university "best" is not how many people of a certain ethnicity attend or the sports scene, but rather the quality of students they turn out. Caltech is known for producing titans in scientific research, and that's because we concentrate on rewarding merit and achievement in math, science, and engineering. We only have 45 humanities majors a year, or whatever number you quoted because our humanities majors are made with the express purpose of being a second major (maybe one person a year graduates with only a humanities major). That's fine--by focusing on math, science, and engineering our average student in these fields is far better prepared for grad school than graduates in these fields from schools you hold in high regard (for example, Ivy League schools). </p>
<p>Yes, students who are looking for a great sports team should not look at Caltech (or MIT for that matter, regardless of whether they have a football team or not). People who are looking for the kind of imagined diversity that only Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans can bring might want to look elsewhere too; although if you can't find diversity here you probably aren't really at a level of maturity to really understand diversity in the first place.</p>
<p>But the people who look at schools like Caltech and MIT aren't primarily looking for these things--they are looking for the absolute best in research opportunities and scientific learning. The opportunities that I have had at Caltech are simply not available at any school in the US except for MIT, and in particular I think the incredibly low student-faculty ratio has prompted a closeness with my faculty advisor that I would not have achieved at MIT.</p>
<p>In conclusion: well-rounded does not mean better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People who are looking for the kind of imagined diversity that only Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans can bring might want to look elsewhere too; although if you can't find diversity here you probably aren't really at a level of maturity to really understand diversity in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd just like to personally thank you for saying this. It's terribly sad how people cannot see diversity outside of skin color... if you can even call that diversity. Having a different skin tone does not make you different -- believing so is something called racism.</p>
<p>In any case, these rankings are based on academics... not sports, diversity, etc. I don't think you'll see 'cash spent on sports stadiums' as a ranking criteria any time soon. The way that US News is going, though, you might see a separate ranking for such in future issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you think that percentage of "under-represented minorities" is really one of the largest determinants of how good a school is, Bay?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, and if you think I wrote this, then apparently you need to read more carefully. My argument was about the limited appeal of Caltech to the majority of American college-bound students. I identified one characteristic (lack of URM diversity) that would likely contribute to that limited appeal, along with its small size, and lack of non-math/science majors, women and sports scene. I did not question the academic quality of the school.</p>
<p>I don't know how you could possibly know which schools I "hold in high regard," so your statement again shows a lack of careful reading of my posts. With regard to racial diversity, I, along with 24 of the top 25 schools in the nation, do value a racially diverse learning environment. If that means l lack your standard of "a level of maturity to really understand diversity," then at least I am in good company.</p>
<p>Do you have the list of public universities?? I'm curious about where I work . . . it's a BIG deal to our president so if we went up maybe we'll get raises (I wish) and if we went down, I'll know to wear black to work tomorrow!</p>
<p>Isn't the point really that Caltech is just much more specialized than the other schools on that list? To me, having Caltech there is like having Juilliard there.</p>
<p>^^Caltech is only slightly more specialized than MIT. MIT glories in its 24/7 math/science emphasis - just like Caltech.</p>
<p>And if specialization disqualifies a school from being ranked among the "best," then we better kick Harvey Mudd, West Point, and the Naval Academy off the LAC ranking list too, because they are very specialized. In fact West Point and the Naval Academy are so specialized that all the graduates of each get jobs working for the same specialized firm upon graduation. Talk about specialization!</p>
<p>I'd be OK with that. What's the point of comparing apples to oranges? Is there anybody deciding whether to attend West Point based on its ranking with respect to other colleges?</p>
<p>I'm sure there are hundreds and hundreds of deans out there who know intimately and are able to provide well-informed assessments regarding the quality of education offered at West Point (and at Potomac State at the same time).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What's the point of comparing apples to oranges?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That's a legitimate question. But if you are unwilling to make apples and orange comparisons then you better give up the whole idea of rankings in the first place (which may not be a bad idea). How do you compare say Princeton with say Berkeley or Michigan? The "national universitiy" category consists of not only apples and oranges but a lot of bananas, raspberries, nectarines, and other fruit too.</p>