<p>Wow. it’s a good thing a school’s entire faculty reputation can be analyzed using only three criteria.</p>
<p>Absolutely t-san. Who needs holistic evaluation of undergraduate education and college faculty when you can narrow it down to an arbitrary ranking of three engineering-related areas?</p>
<p>To booyakasha:
</p>
<p>I didn’t think Yale people are that confused.</p>
<p>The members of national academy of sciences come from all fields, including physical sciences, biological sciences, medical sciences, and social sciences (such as economics, politics, sociology, linguistics, psycology, …).</p>
<p>The members of Institute of medicine come from medical science fields, biomedical and health fields.</p>
<p>The members of national academy of engineering indeed come from engineering and applied sciences, which may not be a big deal for IVY league universities. But I do admire those engineers. It is they who make the world better, more convinient, and more charming. They are my heros.</p>
<p>To t-san:</p>
<p>What do you think are more important, and measurable criteria for faculty reputation?</p>
<p>It seems silly to me to rank Stanford, Yale, and Dartmouth based on absolute numbers of faculty who are members of those national academies/institutes when the schools vary so much in size (undergrad and grad programs). Do you realize how much larger Stanford is than Yale, and how much larger Yale is than Dartmouth? If Yale or Dartmouth doubled their size they would easily see an increase in faculty who are members of those prestigious groups. </p>
<p>And that aside, do those faculty improve the quality of education? No. They exist to do their research, not to teach.</p>
<p>
Excellent point. For those big research universities, faculty tenure, for the most part, is based on how many papers they publish and how much research money they bring to school. That is also how the faculty gain fame. You usually don’t get fame by teaching undergraduate classes.</p>
<p>Stanford’s total faculty: 1878
[Faculty:</a> Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html]Faculty:”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html)</p>
<p>Yale’s total faculty: 3619
[Yale</a> Facts | Yale](<a href=“http://www.yale.edu/about/facts.html]Yale”>Yale Facts | Yale University)</p>
<p>Dartmouth’s faculty: 982 (611 tenured or on tenure track)
[Dartmouth</a> - About Dartmouth - Facts](<a href=“Dartmouth”>Dartmouth)</p>
<p>Apparently Yale is 2 times as big as Stanford in terms of faculty size. Stanford is 2 times as big as Dartmouth. So Stanford has a much higher percentage of faculty elected to the national academies. Yale and dartmouth do not measure up.</p>
<p>To Professor101,</p>
<p>A good researcher does not equal to a bad teacher.</p>
<p>
That is true, but they could be mediocre teachers, or they could be good teachers who don’t want to teach or don’t have time to teach because of their research responsibilities.<br>
Yale and Dartmouth are more undergraduate focused than Stanford.</p>
<p>LACs are more undergraduate focused than research universities, such as Stanford, Yale, and Dartmouth. Would you recommend them over Yale and Dartmouth?</p>
<p>^^^That is an entirely different question. It depends on the person and circumstances.</p>
<p>A great researcher is very likely a great teacher as well. When I was in graduate school, my adviser was a great researcher, a member of national academy of science. He was one of the 2 best teachers I have ever met. He was able to explain very difficult topics in an easy way and made it sound pretty easy and pretty natural.</p>
<p>Interesting quote regarding Stanford and Dartmouth:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com</a> | College sees a decrease in its admissions yield](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2009/05/11/news/admissions/]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2009/05/11/news/admissions/)</p>
<p>Taken in context, the point Laskaris is illustrating in the quote above is that, regardless of the economy, students are choosing top private schools over state schools.</p>
<p>“Laskaris said it does not appear that the economy made students less likely to choose Dartmouth, since the number of students who declined Dartmouth’s offer in favor of attending state schools or other institutions where they would receive merit scholarships did not increase over last year.”</p>
<p>If you read between lines, you can find out that Dartmouth always lost most of admits to other ivies, Stanford and MIT, this year is no exception. For 2184 admits, excluding the 401 from the EA, only 2184*49%-401=669, out of 1783 from RD, will attend, which translates as 37.7% in yield. That means more than 62 people out of 100 will not come. This can be compared with Stanford’s 70% in yield, if everything else is the same.</p>
<p>That may well be true, but there is no question you are taking liberties with her intent – I don’t think you can seriously argue Laskaris was making the point that Dartmouth lost most of its admits to other schools, Ivy or otherwise!</p>