<p>How's it going Renix? Anything I can do for you?</p>
<p>posterX - your assertion that "The size of the endowment almost always has a lot to do with what kind of money is available for advising, fellowships, tutoring, quality of housing, special teaching programs, number of teachers available at any given time, and even dining hall food" is so OFF. this is a common assumption, but it is simply not true. RESEARCH takes the money at most schools. who gets access to this? graduate students.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>Why doesn't Brown manipulate numbers like WashU and Northwestern and climb back up the rankings?</p>
<p>Cheating does not and will not help the student or the school .</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is the fact that the woman you dated is attractive relevant??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought about not putting that in, but then I realized that that is always relevant to anything I am talking about. In fact, it's probably more important than anything else.</p>
<p>What I did leave out about that, though, which I was going to put in: she became a flight attendant. I have nothing against that profession at all; in fact I actually have two close friends, and very well educated, who decided they like that lifestyle. But the question in my mind always was whether or not she would have found a profession she was more committed to over the long term (in Asia, flight attendants get retired pretty quickly for more attractive, younger ones) if she had chosen to go to a lesser ranked school to study something she actually had an interest in studying.</p>
<p>Brunonian, asking a handful of administrators to "select 10 institutions that have exhibited an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching" does not count as a ranking in anyone's book. That's probably why USNEWS has never used that method again to rank schools.</p>
<p>By "unusually strong", they clearly bias university administrators' responses towards colleges that are weak in many areas and which, if they were not Ivies, would probably not be as "known" as hotspots for undergraduates. In other words, it is just a ranking of universities that are disproportionately catering to undergraduates, but not necessarily "disproportionate" in a positive way.</p>
<p>If you actually look the rankings up, you'll notice that Columbia didn't even show up in that ranking at all - probably because it is known as a pretty balanced school, that doesn't cater "unusually" to undergraduates. Tufts, however, did make the list.</p>
<p>The fact that Columbia is not considered a top 25 undergraduate institution in that ranking means those rankings are completely irrelevant. Columbia protested when they were issued, which is probably why they were never used again.</p>
<p>PosterX, What you just said makes no sense.</p>
<p>What don't you understand about the fact that the ranking was an experiment that was completely flawed, and therefore, never repeated?</p>
<p>It was a ranking -simple and short. Do not insult Yales didactic abilities by contesting this. College administrators were asked to select 10 institutions, but USNEWS ranked many more (as the article states that Harvard came in 17th and Tufts at 24). Additionally, the phrase unusually strong does not imply weakness in other areas within a university. The rankings were not comparing university Xs emphasis on undergraduate education compared to its strength in research. In contrast, it was evaluating undergrad education on an intercollegiate and national level. Which makes sense, after all the quality of undergraduate education can not be obtained by measuring the disproportion of a universitys resources on its younger students but its COMMITMENT to them. Policies such as professors being required to teach undergrads, low numbers of TAs teaching classes, etc display this attribute. </p>
<p>Yes, Columbia was not ranked. And? We must not toss out a ranking simply because a few colleges that we expect to garner spots fail to. In fact, it was for this reason USNEWS changed its ranking methodology when CalTech came in as #1 in 2000, because Harvard and Yale started *****ing.</p>
<p>Also, since you claim USNEWS's undergraduate ranking to be flawed, do you make the same argument for its current rankings?</p>
<p>Brunonian and posterX, I just thought I should mention a comment I made earlier in this thread-- if the rankings don't look like they are supposed to look, people will not feel that the methods were valid, even if they were a better indication.</p>
<p>I don't care or know that much more than I've said in these threads about the USNews system, either for choosing UGrad schools or universities, but what I do know is this-- if Harvard was in 10th and Darmouth in 1st, (for example), there would be a lot of people who would laugh at the ranks, even if it were the most scientifically valid set of criteria to date.</p>
<p>There are a lot of flaws with the current USNews system, and it will take some pretty elementary reading and research to find criticisms of this system amongst education scholars/critics/editorialists. But one thing to keep in mind is the system is designed and considered valid when the numbers point to Harvard, MIT, Standford, Brown, Columbia, UChicago, etc etc as strong schools since everyone expects them to show up as strong schools.</p>
<p>The current ranking, even though it is also seriously flawed, has been in place for over a dozen years. It hasn't substantially changed from year to year - it is based on a variety of data. Some of the individual points of data are a bit flawed, but otherwise the methodology is sound. </p>
<p>The survey ranking you cited, from many years ago, where they quizzed a few administrators with a single question, was only undertaken once, and never repeated. It was not repeated for the obvious reason that it was fatally flawed and resulted in a ranking that was not at all related to undergraduate quality. The results only showed which schools were "UNUSUALLY" dedicated to undergraduates, not which ones were "actually" the MOST dedicated to undergraduates.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with which schools you would "expect" to show up. It has everything to do with whether or not the methodology is at all valid in the first place.</p>
<p>Just because there is consistency from year to year (how often do the finances of one college significantly increase versus peers in a single year or two?) does not make the system any more valid or worthy. I also don't think an "UNUSUAL" commitment is so different from, "MOST" committed. When I read that question, and perhaps I'm less semantically rigid than you, I think, "Which schools place a significant amount more attention on their undergraduate program versus their graduate program, so much so that it seems strange for a place that is a UNIVERSITY with a GRAD SCHOOL to do, considering professor's interests and that grad schools bring in more money." That's my personal read on the question, though who knows what other people read, I don't think any more or less of anything because of that informal survey which, if nothing else, demonstrates that Brown's undergraduate program has an impeccable reputation amongst peers which I think is quite telling.</p>
<p>However, I think the current methodology is far from sound simply because I don't think the large majority of the things considered are measures of quality in a school. You can disagree, PosterX, but nothing in the current system assesses students who have come through the undergraduate program in any way. It assesses input factors only, when output is the only thing that should matter from education. There is a lot that goes on in between money and good students walking in the door with the right "numbers". To think that methodology is sound because it's consistent across numbers that have been consistent at universities for YEARS is ridiculous. A sound ranking system would measure the proper thing-- how much (if this is even quantifiable, and I'd argue it's not) are the students taking away from their education? Are they successful, happy, and prepared? Do they feel they brought back from their education what they expected from it? Do they feel that their university was instrumental and uniquely well-suited to make that happen rather than this experience being replicable elsewhere?</p>
<p>Besides the fact that I abhor the fact that some people think one can quantify the worth of an education or even judge universities which are similar only in name and, on the most fundamental level, mission, it's ridiculous to think a survey loaded with input measures is going to accurately assess universities whether or not it's consistent from year to year.</p>
<p>Methodology can be "sound" but the experiment can be worthless if you're measuring the wrong thing.</p>
<p>The truth of hte matter is, there is no great way to "rank" schools-- at best one could create several tiers out of the top 100 with serious gray areas and each school still offering individual strengths and appeal. The truth is, anyone who puts much stock into these ranks probably isn't, in my opinion, smart enough or mature enough to make the most out of their education at college yet, or is completely ignorant to any scientific methodology and how the assertions of the USNews ranking system is hardly supported by their system. The truth is, figuring out that these are anything more than a ROUGH guideline to start from is something most people should be able to do.</p>
<p>And the larger point is this-- there is a place that's right for you. That's the number one college in the nation for you, and that's not something a chart can ever tell you.</p>
<p>Reading threads like this makes me understand why my son turned down Yale and Duke to attend Brown in September. He definitely sounds more like the Brown students who post here than those obsessed with prestige.</p>
<p>I hope your son enjoys it here as much as I do!</p>
<p>Seconded. But, I do hope your son does have a good sense of humor. If he doesn't have one yet, he will develop one soon.</p>
<p>Actually, the current system addresses output in terms of reputation and alumni giving rates --- as well as selectivity, which you think would have something to do with output quality as well, given that the best of the best students - who overwhelmingly choose H/Y/MIT/Caltech/Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore when given that choice - don't just choose where they want to go out of a hat. If you look at other measures, not in USNews, that show you how "successful" alumni are (by any measure, not just top grad schools or whathaveyou), you'll see that they are highly correlated with undergraduate selectivity. </p>
<p>Brown is a very selective school and by many measures does a bit better than its USNWR ranking might attest: an argument that USNWR should "weight" selectivity in its ranking more heavily than it currently does.</p>
<p>@posterX - </p>
<p>Since you have previously expressed more support for USNWR rankings since they are atleast consistent in comparison with the "one question" rankings which you said are catastrophically flawed, I will address your post from the perspective that you think the current USNWR ranking system and whatever it measures might be flawed but is of good use.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the current system addresses output in terms of reputation and alumni giving rates --- as well as selectivity, which you think would have something to do with output quality as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if the output quality of highly selective institutions is higher than that of institutions of relatively lesser selectivity, that does not necessarily mean that the students' undergraduate education had anything to do with their quality. </p>
<p>Output quality of students cannot be arbitrarily taken as a measure of the excellence of the institution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
given that the best of the best students - who overwhelmingly choose H/Y/MIT/Caltech/Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore when given that choice - don't just choose where they want to go out of a hat
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You got any evidence for that? No they don't choose where to go out of a hat. But that doesn't necessarily mean they choose based on solid reason either. They could be choosing on the basis of vague feelings for all we know. Point is - even if the best students go for these institutions, that doesn't mean these institutions are genuinely better than other institutions (in terms of undergrad education, research opportunities, advising, facilities, etc.)</p>
<p>PS - how would you define "best" students anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look at other measures, not in USNews, that show you how "successful" alumni are (by any measure, not just top grad schools or whathaveyou), you'll see that they are highly correlated with undergraduate selectivity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, where's the evidence? And by evidence I mean a definition of what constitutes success and then stats showing that students getting into highly selective institutions actually achieve that success and atleast some demonstration that the institutions the students went to contributed to their success in a manner few other institutions (especially those of high selectivity) could have?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the current system addresses output in terms of reputation and alumni giving rates --- as well as selectivity, which you think would have something to do with output quality as well, given that the best of the best students - who overwhelmingly choose H/Y/MIT/Caltech/Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore when given that choice - don't just choose where they want to go out of a hat.
[/quote]
Selectivity is not an output measure. Selectivity measures, in some ways, the "quality" of students who are being inputted into the schools, "factory" to be output at some arbitrarily higher quality later. I do think that selectivity should probably count for more, but I'm not sure that it's meaningful at all anyway since it's not like everyone is choosing from the same applicant pool who's applying for the same motivations.</p>
<p>As for giving rates, that's a flaw assessment of output. Alumni give at far higher rates to their graduate schools than to their undergraduate schools, a major reason why financial resources are skewed when a school has a more prominent graduate school. Preprofessionals also give far more than more intellectual fields. Also, if a school provides a great education, but is more likely to produce students who are activists, working in non-profit, teachers, etc-- not well paying jobs but important jobs with tremendous meaning to society-- if you're more likely to create socially conscious and responsible students, you're penalized. If you honestly think that if the undergraduates are making less money, even if by there choice due to their beliefs, that the education has been worse in one place or another, then you'd be wrong.</p>
<p>FWIW, I've heard that rumor about Brown, but have never seen statistics that support or debunk that claim.
[quote]
If you look at other measures, not in USNews, that show you how "successful" alumni are (by any measure, not just top grad schools or whathaveyou), you'll see that they are highly correlated with undergraduate selectivity.
[/quote]
True.
[quote]
Brown is a very selective school and by many measures does a bit better than its USNWR ranking might attest: an argument that USNWR should "weight" selectivity in its ranking more heavily than it currently does.
[/quote]
They probably should. Certainly means more than who graduates in the expected four years-- especially at schools with popular 5 year combined degree programs and where they encourage taking leave time...</p>
<p>I would like to point out that, from the academic professional side of the desk, modestmelody's point that the rankings only measure "inputs" rather than "outputs" is dead on and a primary reason many educational researchers and professions dislike the rankings. The rankings DO NOT measure output or quality of teaching, and THAT is precisely why many in higher education have a problem with them. </p>
<p>This goes back to another question we often ask ourselves in higher education: is a degree from a place like Harvard, Yale, or Brown simply a signal that you are intelligent and hardworking or is it a signal that you have actually learned something valuable to society and the workforce at those schools? There is a big distinction here. Simply because you are using "high quality ingredients" does not necessarily mean you are going to produce a high quality product in the end...it is the PROCESS you use those ingredients in that has the biggest affect on your end product, your output. </p>
<p>Alumni giving rates are not a measure of outputs. Furthermore, they can easily be manipulated. Let me say that again - they can easily be manipulated. Reputation is also not a measure of output...academic reputation, at least in US News, is "measured" by peer assessment, which is just so fundamentally flawed to begin with it seems ridiculous one would have any confidence in it.</p>
<p>Sadly, many students make their decisions of where to attend based on these rankings and prestige. See this study, for example...<a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp76.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp76.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Brown does need to play the prestige game to an extent, just like all other schools. However, it is in the good position of having thousands of students every year who are dying to get in because it is just an amazing place to learn. It may get overlooked by those students who are obsessed with prestige, but, then again, would you want those students in your classes?</p>
<p>I agree that rankings are hopelessly flawed and people use them in incorrect ways: see my post at <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4225980&postcount=84%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4225980&postcount=84</a> </p>
<p>. However, in terms of output, why not just look at a ranking of who is attending the best law schools (hint: Yale, Harvard, Amherst are the top 3 per capita), or who is going on to "affect the world" in the greatest way, like Loren Pope's ranking? (e.g., <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2951589&postcount=5%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2951589&postcount=5</a> ... sorry if I already posted this) . You'll notice that these rankings are highly correlated with USNWR/selectivity rankings.</p>