<p>There ARE no "undergraduate rankings" in most departments, and haven't been since the demise of the discredited "Gourman" rankings.</p>
<p>However, since the same Arts & Sciences faculty serves both undergraduate and graduate students in these fields, and faculty reputation is at the core of any departmental ranking, there is no reason to believe that the USNews rankings aren't better than anything else out there.</p>
<p>Both schools are incredible I'm sure. However, I would like to point out a few things. Last year, we went to a college fair in NYC. A former Princeton student told my daughter not to apply there - the college experience is terrible. My daughter will be going to Harvard next year. Over the last year, she has been to classes at Harvard and stayed there for several days at a time. That students are disappointed in their educational experience is primarily "urban legend". She has talked to many students there - some of whom are sophomores. They have said that it takes time to get accustomed to the school. The main reason is because many students for the entire lives have been number 1. When they are at Harvard, they are small fish in a big pond. One student who mentioned this was an Intel Science Award winner. He told my daughter that she will be a lot happier there when she realizes that she will not be number 1.</p>
<p>I think you found one of the exceptions to the rule with that former Princeton student. From what I've heard, Princeton students usually have an intense attachment to the school. Apparently other people seem to think so too.
This was posted in the Brown Vs. Princeton board on the Brown forums:
"Alumni loyalty at Princeton is scary. I don't know of any other alumni who have as much attcahment (sic) and devotion to their alma mater as Princeton alums."</p>
<p>DocT, that "no more number 1" phenomenon is certainly true at Princeton, as well. It's healthy in that students are pushed to think instead about focusing on their real passions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So does anyone have any rankings for undergraduate programs in political science?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Byerly has it almost exactly right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, since the same Arts & Sciences faculty serves both undergraduate and graduate students in these fields, and faculty reputation is at the core of any departmental ranking, there is no reason to believe that the USNews rankings aren't better than anything else out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would note that there are other measures of the quality of political science departments besides US News that are just as or more valid, but in terms of the quality of the undergraduate program the faculty strength is critical. That said, it is not the only factor.</p>
<p>From my personal perspective, as a political science fanatic, I think Princeton has the strongest undergraduate poli sci program. To be sure, Harvard has the strongest graduate poli sci program and I wouldn't hesitate to go there for a PhD. But Princeton comes very close, and has a very prestigious faculty. What pushes Princeton's program over the edge for me is the attention to undergraduate studies, the opportunity to do advanced work and research, the high degree of faculty accessibility, and the great flexibility of the program.</p>
<p>You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but I note that is is only your opinion.</p>
<p>"From my personal perspective, as a political science fanatic, I think Princeton has the strongest undergraduate poli sci program. To be sure, Harvard has the strongest graduate poli sci program and I wouldn't hesitate to go there for a PhD. But Princeton comes very close, and has a very prestigious faculty. What pushes Princeton's program over the edge for me is the attention to undergraduate studies, the opportunity to do advanced work and research, the high degree of faculty accessibility, and the great flexibility of the program."</p>
<p>The very same could be said about Stanford and Yale. You offer nothing that actually makes your case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The very same could be said about Stanford and Yale. You offer nothing that actually makes your case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no quantitative data I can find relating to how much attention and opportunity undergraduates receive at these institutions. It is very difficult to measure the culture of a school numerically. What you could do would be to look at the number of undergraduates enrolled in graduate level courses and the related statistics (number of graduate level courses each student takes, the number of graduate courses a student is prevented from taking, the number of graduate level courses closed to undergraduates, etc.). You could also look at the amount of time undergraduates spend with professors, the number of substantive emails they exchange, and other metrics such as that. You could look at the number of students engaged in advanced research, how much time they spend on it, and how productive they are. You could also conduct a broadbased survey of very high-achieving students (those who would take advantage of this type of program) in order to calculate a quantitative approximation of many of these non-numerical qualities.</p>
<p>It would be a very interesting exercise in statistics to conduct a rigorous quantitative comparison and analyze the data suggested above. Unfortunately, not only has such a study not been done, but almost none (if any) of the datapoints you'd need are available. If you could point me to a resource providing this information, I would gladly provide a more empirical defense of my contention.</p>
<p>That said, I'm basing my opinion both on the students and professors that I've spoken with and on the reading I've done. Relying on anecdotes is a dangerous practice, and so I systematized my information-gathering by asking a broad range of people and asking more general than specific questions. I've also read a significant number of news reports, articles, and books shedding insight into the subject. From what I've gathered, which is not unsubstantial, Princeton consistently comes off as giving attention to undergraduate studies, the opportunity to do advanced work and research, a high degree of faculty accessibility, and a great flexibility in creating one's program of study. Other universities, while not dismissive toward undergraduates, do not come off nearly as well.</p>
<p>That is why I said "from my personal perspective", because that's exactly what it is. I don't have quantative data to back up my assertions, because as far as I'm aware such data does not exist. You can accept my conclusions or leave them. Frankly, I would encourage prospective students to do their own research. Speak with professors, speak with top-flight students, read extensively. Then come to your own conclusions.</p>
<p>Here's how thousands of top applicants rate the schools, presumably based on the same sort of "anecdotes ... news reports, articles, and books shedding insight into the subject" that you consulted:</p>
<p>Here's how EUROPE sees it:</p>
<p>And here's how ASIA sees it:</p>
<p>so we are out of jail.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>I'm fully aware of the revealed preference ranking; it is inapplicable in this circumstance because it only measures the overall perceived quality of the undergraduate program, not any particular facet of it. Many of the students who choose Harvard over Princeton, for instance, report doing so primarily for reasons of campus culture and social life.</p>
<p>Any analysis useful for resolving the question of advanced undergraduate academic opportunities would need to be far more precise, targeted, and survey-intensive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's how EUROPE sees it:</p>
<p>And here's how ASIA sees it:</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Those ranking are not representations of how "Asia" or "Europe" see American universities, for one thing. They are based on the perspectives and ideas of individual researchers.</p>
<p>In any case, I again fail to see your point. You're throwing data out there -- to what end?</p>
<p>Any "survey" such as you suggest would unavoidably be subjective, and since one student body might be more or less critical, or more or less uncritical, of the offerings presented, any comparative "rankings" would be essentially useless - like the silly Princeton Review "lists.</p>
<p>I hate Harvard vs. (your school here) threads for the same reason that I hate Affirmative Action threads. Nobody is looking for information - they just want to argue their own biased viewpoint. And these threads almost always get ugly.</p>
<p>But I can't let this go go unremarked:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>yup the reality byerly is that most undergraduates think they are miserable at Harvard<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is simply incorrect. The reality is that most undergraduates at Harvard love the place and are very pleased with their educations. I've heard for years (mostly here on CC) about all the miserable kids attending Harvard. So when my daughter actually went to Harvard I asked her about it. She said she loves it and in her estimate of the 24 kids in her freshman dorm 21 of them were also very happy. The three unhappy ones were all unhappy for different reasons. The same trends have continued in her sophomore year at her residence House.</p>
<p>So based on her direct experience and not the common "wisdom" on CC, there is indeed a small minority of students there who are unhappy. But to say that the majority are miserable is a gross exaggeration.</p>
<p>I believe the broadly representative views of experts and peers, in colleges around the nation and around the world, and statistics from scholarly publications, are at least a <em>teeny weeny</em> bit more useful than the "anecdotal" views of this or that anonymous (but solidly loyal) alumni poster on College Confidential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any "survey" such as you suggest would unavoidably be subjective, and since one student body might be more or less critical, or more or less uncritical, of the offerings presented, any comparative "rankings" would be essentially useless - like the silly Princeton Review "lists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sophisticated surveys can reduce subjectivity to a very low level. They simply have to be very comprehensive, very specific, very detailed, and very well constructed. It's not a matter of seeing what students generally believe; it's a matter of building a set of questions that ferrets out the information you want in a carefully constructed manner.</p>
<p>The Princeton Review lists you mentioned and other surveys are intrinsically useless because they aren't designed to be scientific; they are pseudo-scientific, and don't gather the information needed to make a rigorous judgement.</p>
<p>The Carnegie endowment has struggled to develop a reliable way to measure "output" and they have thus far failed to come up with an acceptable technique.</p>
<p>USNews has a single "value added" measure with which one might quarrell - but at least they are trying.</p>
<p>If you mean to attack the Shanghai and THES rankings - and even the USNews rankings as excessively "subjective" - I think you are wide of the mark. The first two rely heavily on an analysis of faculty publications, and even the much buffeted USNews has developed a range of objective data to serve as proxies for "educational quality" as they see it.</p>
<p>The trouble is, there will NEVER be a consensus on what makes for "educational quality" - which is the beauty of the Revealed Preferance ranking: it gives us the bottom line choices made by the "customers" - regardless of the numerous and varied factors influencing their actions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe the broadly representative views of experts and peers, in colleges around the nation and around the world, and statistics from scholarly publications, are at least a <em>teeny weeny</em> bit more useful than the "anecdotal" views of this or that anonymous (but solidly loyal) alumni poster on College Confidential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then, perhaps you should specify exactly what you're arguing for and not just shoot out statistics outside the context of a logical argument. The information you provided has little to do with the advanced undergraduate academic opportunities available at these universities, which was the topic we were addressing at that moment. So maybe, just maybe, you should've noted that down?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Carnegie endowment has struggled to develop a reliable way to measure "output" and they have thus far failed to come up with an acceptable technique.</p>
<p>USNews has a single "value added" measure with which one might quarrell - but at least they are trying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, Bylerly, it seems that you keep introducing random ideas that have little to do with what we're discussing. Obviously calculating the output of universities is an incredibly difficult and complex statistical process. It involves so many variables, qualities, and datapoints that it's enough to make your head spin.</p>
<p>Calculating advanced undergraduate academic opportunities is, at least methodologically, much easier. It hasn't been done, sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be.</p>
<p>My point in a nutshell, though, is this: we don't have enough data to come to a conclusion on this matter, and therefore aggregated anecdotes, insight, and information is the best we can do.</p>
<p>Better to "shoot out statistics" and the informed views of experts than to shoot from the hip with my own personal (and possibly biassed) "opinions.</p>
<p>And I'm discussing the issues as I see them ... sorry if the view is different from behind YOUR spectacles!</p>