<p>In 1995 US News had a list of top National U who focused on teaching undergrads. I think the top three were Dartmouth, Brown, William & Mary. Does anyone have the complete list?</p>
<p>Also, I wonder why they only published that one year. It would be much more helpful for families who use rankings to research colleges. The cynic in me wants to think that any list that doesnt start with HYP gets reshuffled until the "order is restored" ergo the introduction of PA.</p>
<p>The quality of teaching at any school varies from professor to professor. But most top schools have the money and the prestige to attract the best teachers and researchers.</p>
<p>Well doctorb, you are right about your ranking suspicions. People have almost "sacred" beliefs on what the best colleges are, a similar situation occurred when Caltech showed up as #1 above HYP. </p>
<p>So, I went on wikipedia I found a link: <a href="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v4/S21/US_NEWS.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v4/S21/US_NEWS.html</a></p>
<p>"This year, in response to public concerns over the quality of teaching in higher education, US News editors asked university administrators to select 10 institutions that have exhibited "an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching." Boston College was among six New England institutions chosen: Dartmouth College and Brown University ranked first and second, respectively; Yale (10th), Harvard (17th) and Tufts (24th) universities also were ranked."</p>
<p>I'm going to do a little googling to try to find the whole ranking.</p>
<p>Yale at 10 and Harvard at 17! No wonder they covered that up post haste. That would have set the US News junkies on their ear! Actually if they continued that ranking of teaching schools it would have created such a controversy over their golden goose questioning their own validity. </p>
<p>I would love to see that complete list.</p>
<p>found it... If you have on-line library access here is where you will find it.</p>
<p>Head of the class. (top-ranked universities and colleges for undergraduate instruction)(America's Best Colleges).</p>
<p>U.S. News & World Report 119.n11 (Sept 18, 1995): pp140(2)</p>
<p>In recognition of the widespread public concern about the quality and effectiveness of teaching on the nation's campuses, U.S. News this year for the first time asked presidents, provosts and deans of admission to select the 10 schools in their category where the faculty "has an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching." Here are the colleges and universities that received the most votes:</p>
<p>*TOP NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES *</p>
<ol>
<li>Dartmouth College (N.H.) </li>
<li>Brown University (R.I.) </li>
<li>College of William and Mary (Va.) </li>
<li>Rice University (Texas) </li>
<li>Princeton University (N.J.) </li>
<li>Stanford University (Calif.) </li>
<li>Duke University (N.C.) </li>
<li>Miami University at Oxford (Ohio) </li>
<li>University of Notre Dame (Ind.)</li>
<li>Yale University (Conn.)</li>
<li>University of Virginia</li>
<li>University of Chicago (Ill.)</li>
<li>Emory University (Ga.)</li>
<li>Univ. of California at Santa Cruz</li>
<li>Vanderbilt University (Tenn.)</li>
<li>Boston College (Mass.)</li>
<li>Harvard University (Mass.)</li>
<li>Northwestern University (Ill.)</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Wake Forest University (N.C.)</li>
<li>Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill</li>
<li>Brigham Young U. at Provo (Utah)</li>
<li>Washington University (Mo.)</li>
<li>Georgetown University (D.C.)</li>
<li>Tufts University (Mass.)</li>
</ol>
<p>TOP NATIONAL LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES
1. Carleton College (Minn.)
2. Swarthmore College (Pa.)
3. Williams College (Mass.)
4. Grinnell College (Iowa)
5. Amherst College (Mass.)
6. Earlham College (Ind.)
7. Haverford College (Pa.)
8. St. John's College (Md.)
9. Colorado College
10. Davidson College (N.C.)
11. Oberlin College (Ohio)
12. Pomona College (Calif.)
12. Wellesley College (Mass.)
14. Bowdoin College (Maine)
15. St. Olaf College (Minn.)
16. Bryn Mawr College (Pa.)
16. Macalester College (Minn.)
18. Bates College (Maine)
18. Middlebury College (Vt.)
18. Reed College (Ore.)
21. Kenyon College (Ohio)
21. Spelman College (Ga.)
23. Smith College (Mass.)
24. University of the South (Tenn.)
25. Centre College (Ky.)</p>
<p>It is interesting to compare the USNWR Top 25 rankings for 1995 with this list of schools known for their excellent work in the classroom. </p>
<p>1 Harvard (ranked # 17 in the classroom)
2 Princeton (ranked # 5 in the classroom)
3 Yale (ranked # 10 in the classroom)
4 Stanford (ranked # 6 in the classroom)
6. Duke (ranked # 7 in the classroom)
7 Caltech (ranked # 19 in the classroom)
8 Dartmouth (ranked # 1 in the classroom)
11. Brown (ranked # 2 in the classroom)
12. Rice (ranked # 4 in the classroom)
14 Northwestern (ranked # 18 in the classroom)
16 Emory (ranked #13 in the classroom)
17 U Virginia (ranked # 11 in the classroom)
18 Vanderbilt (ranked # 15 in the classroom)
19 Notre Dame (ranked # 9 in the classroom)
20 Wash U (ranked # 22 in the classroom)
25 Georgetown (ranked # 24 in the classroom)</p>
<p>The following were ranked by USNWR as Top 25 colleges, but NOT recognized as having equally good performance in the classroom:</p>
<p>MIT
Columbia
U Chicago
U Penn
Cornell
U Michigan
Johns Hopkins
UCLA
UC Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>Isn’t it interesting that 8 of the 10 that did not receive top 25 ranks in the classroom are today among the very highest scorers (and thus the greatest beneficiaries) in the Peer Assessment scoring?</p>
<p>Princeton Review's most recent ranking for colleges where the "Professors get high marks":</p>
<p>1 Wellesley College<br>
2 Harvey Mudd College<br>
3 Middlebury College<br>
4 Sarah Lawrence College<br>
5 Simon's Rock College of Bard<br>
6 Ripon College<br>
7 St. John's College (NM)<br>
8 Wabash College<br>
9 Reed College<br>
10 Sweet Briar College<br>
11 Hendrix College<br>
12 St. John's College (MD)<br>
13 Kenyon College<br>
14 Hampden-Sydney College<br>
15 Marlboro College<br>
16 Centre College<br>
17 Bennington College<br>
18 Hillsdale College<br>
19 Thomas Aquinas College<br>
20 Sewanee- University of the South</p>
<p>I'm tempted to believe this list over USNWR (which is pretty much useless in general, and also because that list is from 1995), because PR actually goes out and interviews/polls students. They are an independent entity that makes money by marketing the hip/fluffy truth to kids and parents.</p>
<p>The average teaching at an LAC is going to miles better than at a big university. Why? Smaller classes where the professor is able to keep track of each individual kid. Also professors are there to teach, not to do research/write books.</p>
<p>If a kid can get into Harvard, odds are he/she does not need to be coddled through college. But for kids who need very engaged teachers, the schools on PR's list are probably much better.</p>
<p>Princeton Review's lists are not that accurate. This becomes apparent when you look at some of the categories for which an objective ranking could be made looking at the same thing. For instance, the "Best College Library" category has Harvard first. Makes sense, right, the largest university library should be ranked first. But where is the second largest university library, Yale? Not even in the top-20. Nor is the number-3 library, Illinois, nor the number 4 library, Berkeley. Unlike the terrific libraries at Brigham Young, West Virginia, Loyola, Whitman, St Olaf, Wesleyan, Dickinson, Stanford (surprisingly, it has relatively few volumes), Mt Holyoke, Emory, Valparaiso and Furman all of which are top-20 university libraries according to PR. Now, students at West Virginia may love their library, but a library that is not even in the top 113 in volumes according to the Association of Research Libraries (113 is all they have the number for) can hardly be the 5th best in the country, and is certainly not better than the library at Yale, Illinois, or Berkeley. If Princeton Review's reviewers are as good at ranking their academic experience as they are at ranking their libraries, then the rankings aren't much good for anything.</p>
<p>What constitutes a great library shifts from list to list.</p>
<p>Some people cite UT's rare manuscripts/volumes collection as making it inherently better than many other libraries. But is it more useful to the average undergrad? Probably not.</p>
<p>I think the lesson to be learned is that any list, is probably flawed. Especially when it concerns a quality that is inherently unquantifiable such as the quality of teaching.</p>
<p>PR is based on student polls. why does a huge library matter to the average undergrad? it jus means that there are a couple more million books they'll never use. it's based on availability of books, the physical library building, and a range of other qualities.</p>
<p>OK, so a huge library isn't important to the average undergrad. But why do you think Harvard students rate their library so highly? I would say that it's a fair bet that it's because they know that their library is the largest university library in the US. And if you don't like that example, consider the massive fluctuations undergone in the PR rankings in almost every category every year. Unless you think that the degree to which a school is a party school, or has good professors, or provides a good quality of life, or has a good library, drastically changes every year, you will have to admit that the PR rankings are completely unreliable, and not at all reflective of grand, absolute distinctions.
They're not completely useless: if a school gets in the top-20 party schools, it's a good bet that there are a lot of parties, but they certainly aren't capable of providing very good information as to what schools have the best teaching.</p>
<p>ses,
I agree with your point about the advantages of small classes, but I think you may be missing how closely the USNWR Top 20 National Unis compare to the USNWR Top 20 LACs for both class size and student/faculty ratio. Both groups of schools offer 69% of their classes in sizes of 20 or fewer students while the Nat'l Unis even have an advantage in student faculty ratio (7.2/1 vs 8.8/1 for the LACs). Here is the full list:</p>
<p>Student/Faculty ratio, % of classes under 20 </p>
<p>5/1 , 72% Princeton
7/1 , 69% Harvard
6/1 , 76% Yale
6/1 , 73% Stanford
6/1 , 74% U Penn
3/1 , 75% Caltech
7/1 , 61% MIT
8/1 , 73% Duke
6/1 , 71% Columbia
6/1 , 72% U Chicago
8/1 , 64% Dartmouth
7/1 , 73% Wash U
10/1 , 60% Cornell
9/1 , 68% Brown
7/1 , 74% Northwestern
11/1 , 66% Johns Hopkins
5/1 , 62% Rice
7/1 , 66% Emory
9/1 , 67% Vanderbilt
13/1 , 55% Notre Dame
7.2/1 , 69% AVERAGE</p>
<p>7/1 , 75% Williams
8/1 , 68% Amherst
8/1 , 76% Swarthmore
9/1 , 64% Wellesley
9/1 , 64% Carleton
9/1 , 70% Middlebury
8/1 , 73% Pomona
10/1 , 64% Bowdoin
10/1 , 72% Davidson
8/1 , 75% Haverford
9/1 , 79% Claremont McK
9/1 , 64% Wesleyan
8/1 , 66% Grinnell
8/1 , 69% Vassar
9/1 , 62% Harvey Mudd
9/1 , 68% W&L
9/1 , 70% Smith
10/1 , 77% Hamilton
10/1 , 63% Colgate
9/1 , 53% US Naval Acad
9/1 , 71% Oberlin
8.8/1 , 69% AVERAGE</p>
<p>By contrast, the five most highly ranked public universities have a student/faculty ratio of 15/1 and 51% of their classes to groups of 20 or fewer. This is obviously one of the major differences between the privates and the publics.</p>
<p>Great job Sybbie. I love the way the editors introduced the list with the phrase " in response to widespread public concern". That is a phrase and a list that should be reprised for 2007. </p>
<p>I dont think some people realize that there can be a dramatic distinction between "good ranking" and "Good in the classroom." Kind of like the difference between "good looking" and "good in bed".</p>
<p>Which would you like for 4 years of your life?</p>
<p>Hawk. This would be a worthwhile post were it more current. A 12 year old stat is too old to be considered pertinent.</p>
<p>I found the list (in post #5) interesting, despite its being dated. Who would have thought that UCSC would have impressed its peers so well? And having done so then, would the college not have tried to build on that and keep that distinction? If USNWR had kept that category, perhaps we (as consumers) would have seen colleges falling all over themselves to find ways to improve that metric. Why did the magazine drop it?</p>
<p>gabriellah,
I hear you on the timeline and agree that 12 years makes this information pretty dated and not very relevant for today's students looking for a college. But it is very interesting reading and it wouldn't take a Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew to connect the dots between the exclusion of those 9 high prestige schools that did not make the list and future steps by USNWR to change the methodology to one based on reputation in academic circles and not classroom teaching. It seems a shame that we can't have both…or neither. </p>
<p>Despite the age of the list, it is interesting to see some relatively unsung colleges make the list and some, like William & Mary and Rice, in very prominent Top 5 positions. Also, 7 of the top 20 "Best Teaching" colleges are located in the South where I would suggest that people are less focused on prestige and more on the reality and the importance of what goes on in the classroom. Those 7 Southern colleges were W&M, Rice, Duke, U Virginia, Emory, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest and U North Carolina. Also, of the four publics that made the list, 3 are located in the South (W&M, U Virginia and U North Carolina). </p>
<p>Conversely, three Ivies didn't make the list (U Penn, Columbia-despite all of its reputation with Nobel prize winners, and Cornell) and MIT did not as well (but Caltech did). Nor did the prominent publics of UC Berkeley, UCLA and U Michigan, supporters of which to varying degrees tout their horns about their great PA scores. I bet all of these colleges were glad that USNWR got rid of the "Best Teaching" part of their survey.</p>
<p>Now I understand.</p>
<p>Hawk. I think the "best teaching" concept is a good one, and would keep the colleges on their toes, in this regard. USNWR does serve a positive function when it shines a light on the areas of relative weakeness at various schools. Then the schools feel motivated to try and ameliorate the situation, which can only be a good thing.
But, students should not be part of the equation when assessing the quality of teaching for the purpose of the national rankings. And I don't think it was in this '95 survey.
Maybe this stat was dropped because it is difficult to assess? I really don't know, but I do think that it could be a valuable tool, if handled properly. This is a hoop that I would like to see the schools jump through!</p>
<p>Great point jazzymom. Instead of manipulating admission rates colleges would be focusing on how to impress their peers on classroom excellence. Now we have data on financial resources (research grants and fundraising) instead of maybe reducing class sizes or making sure TAs can speak English.</p>
<p>Classroom proficiency was measured in 1995 just like PA is assessed today; by survey. If it is good enough for PA it should be good enough for good teaching ranking. </p>
<p>That came about b/c of Public Concern. The Public should be even more concerned today since US News is even more popular for high school students and families in selecting schools than it was in 1995.</p>