<p>I wasn’t offended, at all! I just wanted to clarify that UA has always been relatively highly ranked, especially considering that, unlike many state universities, UA still seeks to “educate the masses” per their original dictate. As you point out, through their merit scholarship programs, Honors College, they are attempting to adapt and retain their place in the rankings because, in this day and age, “rankings”–no matter how poorly formulated–matter to a lot of people. I think there is a difference between a newer school attempting to manipulate the data to shoot from “nowhereland” on the rankings to the top 50, and an old established uni attempting to maintain their position of relevance. One is “an upstart” and one is not, though in some areas of the country, some folks don’t know or care about the difference. So, I just felt obligated to note, for the record, that there are, indeed, old, established schools outside of NE, UA being one of them. That’s all. :)</p>
<p>By the way, I get a huge kick out of NU being up front with their tactics. And I feel like the more light is shone on the horridly flawed formulations of USNWR rankings, the better. EVERY school in the Top 100 (and probably more) games the rankings to some degree. It is what it is–a mess. But, if you’re going to do it, at least own it. I appreciate NU more, not less, now. </p>
<p>@PurpleTitan Chatting up the university can be seen as a method to improve national exposure (and prestige) of the school. This would create more “value” for the degree held by the student/alumni. Is Northeastern a better known school today, than it was in the 80’s?</p>
<p>At least that’s one theory! :P</p>
<p>As I’ve posted previously, the only real benefit to Northeastern from its rise in the rankings is that it has put the university on the radar of students, parents and employers from outside of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. All the other things President Aoun has done (decreasing class size, building new STEM facilities, increasing research funding etc.) have been a direct benefit to the students. With a 96% freshman retention rate, there are not too many disappointed new students. </p>
<p>@calmom</p>
<p>The award winner might not teach undergrads, but he or she will likely bring in additional faculty talent, some of whom will teach the youngsters. And that program will attract more grad-student talent, and some of them will likely work as lab and discussion TAs.</p>
<p>At the very least, you’re looking at more money and prestige for the school. Which will trickle down.</p>
<p>So even if they do not teach undergrads, renowned faculty affect them favorably. Though when one does teach, it’s pretty cool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. When d. was in college, I used to be rather amused at some of the negative reviews posted on CULPA about the teaching abilities of some of the Nobelists at at Columbia. </p>
<p>I don’t know if I had a Nobel prof at UW but a couple still stick out:</p>
<p>One was Bassam Shakhashiri, who taught my Chem Intro class. I might have enjoyed Chem regardless, but he made it especially fun with the chem reaction light show he provided every MWF.</p>
<p>The other was my Finite Math prof, a Dr. Wanger. The guy wore slacks and shirt and tie – pretty normal – and moon boots (not normal). His voice and speech patterns were also peculiar. LOL </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of those reviews need to be taken with a few barrels of salt. </p>
<p>One review on that site some years back made a negative comment about a faculty member about her “foreign accent”. A bit interesting considering I know for a fact said faculty member is American-born with the expected proficiency in the English language. </p>
<p>I had the honor of taking a class with a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, and a Nobel Prize winner in literature. Both were sublime teachers who cared deeply about undergraduates, which is why they still taught them. Just putting it out there, for all those who insist that undergraduates at Big Research U don’t get access to star faculty, and that star faculty is by definition uninterested in undergrads. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto. And this Nobelist chose to teach Frosh Chem. He obviously did not have to. But his reasoning was something along the line: ‘if I can’t get Frosh excited about something I love, I should not be in education.’</p>
<p>I did NOT say that Nobelists were bad teachers. </p>
<p>I said that winning a Nobel prize is no guarantee of being a good teacher. </p>
<p>So you can’t determine quality of a college by counting up the Nobelists on their faculty, particularly at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>Coming up with examples of Nobelists who happen to have been good teachers is not a refutation of that point. The Nobel is awarded based on accomplishments, not based on personal qualities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one said that you did. </p>
<p>At least, in my case, I was just countering your anecdote (of Columbia) with one of my own.</p>
<p>Exceptions to the rule are both notable and memorable. </p>
<p><a href=“Nobel Winner Randy Schekman on Education, Teaching, Science - YouTube”>Nobel Winner Randy Schekman on Education, Teaching, Science - YouTube;
<p>The continuing presence of Smoot, Perlmutter, et al has often been discussed on the CSS forum of CC, as well as the parking slot. Scheckman has his heart in the right place. </p>
<p>Oh shoot, Northeastern did not make it:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/04/2015-best-colleges-preview-top-25-national-universities”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/04/2015-best-colleges-preview-top-25-national-universities</a></p>
<p>If you care to know, CMU got luckier than Wake Forest in the ties for that “last” place. The rest will be rearranging the furniture to keep it mildly interesting. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one was expecting to, except perhaps a few sarcastic CC’ers who want even more reasons to denounce the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>There is a time for sarcasm and a small doses of humor. And there are other times for looking at the facts with objectivity. And, fwiw, if facts are important, one could both applaud most of the information presented by USNews and denounce its deliberate flaws. </p>
<p>Nuanced positions are not always easy to understand. </p>
<p>I will try harder next time.</p>
<p>Why would the ranking systems choose not to include the test scores of students who are admitted in the Spring or Summer? </p>
<p>It’s not provided. The federal government is only asking for the Fall data.</p>
<p>So they reduced class sizes, built new dorms, built a new science and engineering complex, worked on retention, hired more faculty…are they improving the college or “gaming”?</p>