<p>haha. I think lesdiablesbleus gave up</p>
<p>Why the hell is every thread a Duke thread? Darn it lesdiablesbles, calm down. Why are you so insecure about Duke–its one of the nation’s best and elite universities! You don’t see molliebatmit outrageously defending MIT or mathboy98 obtusely advertising Berkeley in ever single thread out here.</p>
<p>If some high school kid says Duke is equal to UMich or even that Duke is like a community college, then IGNORE him if you don’t believe it. Stop being so obnoxious with your whole “Duke rules, state schools sux” attitude. Because that attitude will destroy you. </p>
<p>lesdiables–this is what most CCers believe: Duke and UChicago are like honorary “lower ivy league” just as Stanford and MIT are honorary “upper ivy league” hence HYPSM.
<a href=“Ivy League - Wikipedia”>Ivy League - Wikipedia;
I have all the links and stats with me to prove Duke’s worth. Actually, I have nothing to prove because people already know Duke is an awesome school. People like Olympic ice skater Rachel Flatt apply to Duke among Stanford and Harvard.
Just let it go.</p>
<p>However, schools like UC Berkeley and UMich, UVA, and Northwestern are NOTHING to sneeze at. These are excellent schools who have produced excellent alumni. Don’t ever say anything like this EVER.
</p>
<p>You’re just embarrassing your alma mater.</p>
<p>Schools like Cal and Michigan have PA scores equal to, or better than Duke John117. They are both PEERS of Duke. Academia, you know those people who actually understand the quality of an institution, don’t look at Duke any differently than they do a school like Michigan. It’s only here on CC that there is a distinction made because of rankings at the USNWR.</p>
<p>“If some high school kid says Duke is equal to UMich or even that Duke is like a community college, then IGNORE him if you don’t believe it.”</p>
<p>Where did you read that?</p>
<p>My final defense for Duke on this thread. Then I’m out.</p>
<p>@rjkofnovi: Duke’s peers are Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, and UPenn. Berkeley and UMich are peers, but the “lower Ivies” are viewed as the standard/classic peers of Duke.
I’ve noticed in many of your threads and responses, you seem very deliberate in putting Duke down. I ask do you have some sort of grudge against Duke? Much of your remarks seem very poignant. </p>
<p>This is a copy and paste from the Duke forum:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To the OP: I’m sorry about my post above. This thread somehow deviated to Duke when its supposed to be about UMich.</p>
<p>UMich is an EXCELLENT school. My mother did her grad school there, so I visited the place. I really loved it and I highly recommend you go there. Heck, I probably would have chosen it over Berkeley, which is our state flagship and the “number 1 public university” in America.</p>
<p>I wish you good luck.</p>
<p>The PA of Duke is 4.4
The PA of Michigan is 4.4
The PA of Berkeley is 4.7</p>
<p>PA stand for Peer Assessment.</p>
<p>I am not putting Duke down. You, as do many here on CC, place Michigan and Berkeley too low based on USNWR overall rankings. Academically they are all PEERS, with Cal being the best of three in that respect. Only HYPSM and maybe Caltech are marginally academically superior to Michigan, Cal, And the rest of the schools you mentioned in your post. My comments are always based on academics. IMO the quality of the academics is the single most important factor in attending any university. Many here on CC disagree with that of course, but from that viewpoint all three schools are PEERS.</p>
<p>“@rjkofnovi: Duke’s peers are Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, and UPenn.”</p>
<p>I agree with you on this statement, you just need to add about ten more schools to that list!</p>
<p>^ please elaborate on academics and what you mean by academically superior?? These are very vague terms.</p>
<p>It seems the exams and teaching materials at berkeley are superior to that of Duke and Michigan lol.</p>
<p>Absolute crap. Any ■■■■■■ could tell that PA has to do with graduate programs. I really want to know what academics means and how Berkeley’s “academics” or “Michigan’s” academics is superior to other schools.</p>
<p>Rjk,
Again you confuse grad-program fueled research activity with the quality of the educational experience delivered to undergrads. It’s a shame that you can’t understand (or maybe you can’t accept) that there is a lot more to consider in comparing colleges. </p>
<p>As I have noted on many occasions, the key metrics to be used by aspiring undergraduates are:</p>
<ol>
<li> Quality of student peers (stronger students preferred)</li>
<li> Size of classroom (smaller class sizes preferred)</li>
<li> Quality of classroom instruction (teaching by profs preferred and high access to profs preferred)</li>
<li> Institutional Resources and a college’s willingness to spend them on undergrads (deep financial pockets and verifiable spending on things like Financial Aid and various student services)</li>
</ol>
<p>Points 1 & 2 are pretty standard and there is a plethora of statistical data to guide us in making comparisons and drawing some conclusions. Likewise with Point 4. The most difficult to compare is Point # 3.</p>
<p>For quality of instruction there are plenty of sources with relatively large sample sizes that can provide some insight, but this is the one variable where the student needs to due some direct investigation and comparison. By doing so, it will become clearer the degree to which an institution balances its commitment to undergraduate teaching vs research. </p>
<p>As for one potentially useful statistical comparison, take a look at the IPEDS database and the data from The Delta Project, ( <a href=“http://www.tcs-online.org/Home.aspx[/url]”>http://www.tcs-online.org/Home.aspx</a>) which provides a lot of comparisons of institutional spending. </p>
<p>For example, they provide comparisons of how money is spent by an institution on a per student basis, eg, how much goes to instruction, how much to research, how much to academic support, etc. In the case of some of the colleges mentioned above, including U Michigan, here is how it compares:</p>
<p>Spending per Student on Education & General</p>
<p>$29,271 U Michigan</p>
<p>$72,802 Duke
$44,804 Brown
$84,018 Columbia
$63,115 Dartmouth
$69,372 U Penn</p>
<p>Spending per Student on Research</p>
<p>$21,089 U Michigan</p>
<p>$62,991 Duke
$17,495 Brown
$23,700 Columbia
$49,169 Dartmouth
$42,033 U Penn</p>
<p>Please note that these numbers should not be interpreted monolithically and that they are per capita measurements, but I strongly encourage you to look at and think about these comparisons as they can be excellent clues into the nature of the campus environment that an undergraduate enters.</p>
<p>If we want to use PA as a way to measure graduate research, then Duke is not superior to Michigan.</p>
<p>The PA scores at USNWR are for UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION.</p>
<p>Tenis,
I’m not arguing the strength of U Michigan’s graduate programs. Make all the hay you like out of that. </p>
<p>My peeve is the continuing campaign by some posters to elevate/associate U Michigan’s undergraduate offering with stronger privates such as are found in the USNWR Top 20. Sorry, but its reputation within academia can’t trump the reality on the ground nor supersede the quality of other colleges all around the USA. The reality is that there are lots of better places for undergrad and top non-Michigan students regularly use the school as a back-up/safety choice. </p>
<p>Compared to the nation’s top undergraduate destinations, U Michigan is a nice school but definitely not a particularly selective or elite place nor does it offer near as much educational intimacy or provide comparable levels of financial and academic support. Based on the factors relevant to undergraduate education/environment, its proper private peer group is NYU, Boston College, Tulane, etc.</p>
<p>
I have to say, that is a non-sensical statement on several grounds. It might be intended to be for undergrad only, but that makes no sense. How in the world would someone at UCLA, for example, have a clue as to what goes on day-to-day or even in general in undergraduate education at Miami, or Wisconsin, or any school where they have never set foot on the campus and maybe know a few people there, most likely only in their own specialized area of study? How about the University of Montana? My point being Montana could be the very best undergrad experience possible, and who would ever know it? In addition, does anyone really believe these people are going to separate their impression of a school as an undergraduate institution from the graduate research that goes on? That is living in some idealistic dreamworld.</p>
<p>PA is a highly flawed metric. Anyone that specializes in polling/questionaire construction would tell you that in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>^^Of course CC posters know more about academic quality than thousands of qualified academicians right?</p>
<p>
In fact, as an aggregate group with their personal experience at these schools, probably yes. But as I said it is a flawed metric, because while they will have more on the ground knowledge, they will also be biased. In addition, your use of the term “qualified” is improper. Qualified to teach at a university and in their area of expertise? Usually yes. Qualified to rate schools they have never been to, had any experience with, and know little about other than the research done their in their own limited area? I think not.</p>
<p>^^I understand. The PA of Tulane is too low in your opinion.</p>
<p>
I both agree and disagree with this statement, comparing the two top private and public universities with which I am most familiar. </p>
<p>I disagree because the quality of professors at most of the elites is relatively the same. Contrary to claims often made, these professors are not particularly more concerned with graduate students than undergrads - indeed, I often think it’s the other way around. Just because a department is larger or stronger does not mean it neglects its undergrads. Class sizes are admittedly a bit larger at publics, but the upper level classes are not huge, and most have 30 or fewer students. Purely in terms of academic quality, I’d say top publics are every bit as good as pretty much any college in the country. This is even more true for departments like classics and geology that tend to be extremely tiny even at the very largest colleges.</p>
<p>I agree, on the other hand, that the top privates coddle their students more. They’re more willing to pay for things like faculty taking students to lunch, and advising is typically a lot better. Many of the elites do much better at production of things like the Rhodes and Marshall fellowships because they have entire offices devoted to them, whereas publics often tend to leave students to fend for themselves in applying for them. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe in getting the best bang for your buck, so why not get coddled if the two would be roughly the same price? A public, however, can be a great option for several reasons – a student is in-state, financial or merit aid makes it cheaper, it’s measurably much stronger in a given area, a student prefers a large school or athletic scene, etc.</p>
<p>^^^A sensible statement by warblersrule86.</p>
<p>hawkette went to The University of Ohio State. She just assumes all state schools are middling…</p>