<p>Except that the ranking is meant to be a guide to undergraduate education. The whole point of the thread. Stanford tops Duke on plenty of other criteria. PA not needed, and worse.</p>
<p>You can't compare apples with oranges. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and many other LACs have high PA scores because they are rated by administrators at other LACs. Their PA scores may be drastically affected if they were rated by national universities.</p>
<p>Re: LACs
Someone posted a calculation of the largest discrepancies between PA rating and other criteria.
As I recall, schools that (to me) get the regional bias shaft include Pomona, Harvey Mudd and Washington and Lee.
Schools that get the liberal bias shaft are those with conservative or preppy reps, such as Hamilton, Washington and Lee (again), Lafayette, Union and Gettysburg. Boosted are Smith, Oberlin, Macalester, Bryn Mawr and Mt. Holyoke.
The inexplicable outlier (to me) seems to be Bard, a liberal school that gets the PA shaft. It makes me wonder whether they axed tenured faculty or something.
I don't think I have a liberal or conservative bias personally. As a group neither list is particularly appealing.
Notre Dame, Georgetown and Boston College, on the university side, all suffer from low PAs vs their USN&WR ranking. Need I mention Holy Cross?
The whole PA rating is the good ole boy system that in the corporate sector gave rise to Consumer Reports. Do we really want General Motors, Ford and Chrysler telling us what to think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Look at the other factors that count in the US News ranking:</p>
<p>Ave. freshman retention rate: Stanford 98%, Duke 97%
2006 predicted graduation rate: Stanford 93%, Duke 94%
2006 actual graduation rate: Stanford 95%, Duke 94%
2006 overperf./underperf.: Stanford +2, Duke none
Faculty resources rank: Stanford 13, Duke 3
% of classes <20: Stanford 73%, Duke 73%
% of classes >50: Stanford 10%, Duke 6%
Student/faculty ratio: Stanford 6/1, Duke 8/1
% faculty who are fulltime: Stanford 100%, Duke 97%
Selectivity rank: Stanford 7, Duke 12
SAT 25th-75th percentile: Stanford 1340-1540, Duke 1350-1540
Freshmen in top 10% of HS class: Stanford 89%, Duke 89%
Acceptance rate: Stanford 11%, Duke 23%
Financial resources rank: Stanford 10, Duke 14
Alumni giving rank: Stanford 9, Duke 2
Alumni giving rate: Stanford 38, Duke 52</p>
<p>These are mainly trivial differences. Stanford has a slight edge in student faculty ratio and percento f faculty who are fulltime, but Duke has a slight edge in class size and comes out ahead in the broader category of "faculty resources," suggesting Duke must also have higher faculty salaries (which outweighs other factors in the "faculty resources" category). The two schools have almost identical SAT scores, though Stanford's acceptance rate is a bit lower---suggesting it has either more applicants, a higher yield, or both, but essentially nets the same students. Stanford has a slight edge in financial resources but Duke has an edge in alumni giving. </p>
<p>Basically, then, it's a push; take away PA and these are the same school. The key difference is what's reflected in the PA score: Stanford 4.9, Duke 4.4. Although Duke is a very, very good school, most people in academia think Stanford is a somewhat better school because it has a stronger faculty. And yes, it matters.</p>
<p>HYPSM...............then Duke with about 20 others. You can't eliminate the PA scores.</p>
<p>NUMBERS.....NUMBERS.......NUMBERS......EXCEPT PA</p>
<p>If we look at the criteria set by USNWR, they're all based on numbers; Retention Score (6-yr 4-yr graduate rates), Faculty Resources (class sizes, faculty pay, faculty/student ratio etc.), Student Selectivity (sat/act scores, top 10% hs graduates and acceptance rate), Financial Resources (average spending per student), Graduation Rate Performance and Alumni Giving Rate.</p>
<p>As we can see, they're all numbers. Except PA which is at least based on human evaluation to account for all those intangibles such as dedication to teaching, academic strengths (programs and majors), research findings, papers/citations, instructions in-class and out-of-class and so on. Now I'm sure PA has many flaws and does not cover all those intangibles but at least it's a wholistic view on all those intangible elements that are not and cannot be very well reflected in other numbers. How far PA can cover those intangible elements is very much up to each and every individuals rating.</p>
<p>Take away the PA and all we have left are just numbers and all we can argue about and debate on would be what criteria to drop and what weightings to be adjusted. With PA, we can voice our concern and speak our mind because PA has always been and will continue to be DEBATABLE. And for the past recent years, USNWR has been hearing these voices and I'm sure that some changes/modifications will be underway. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that PA could be used as a balancing act to all this ranking game.</p>
<p>I don't think we should leave our higher education system entirely to just those numbers. And that means some sort of better human assessment (assessments by academics, students, employers or whatever combination) with proper weighting should be integrated into the overall methodology.</p>
<p>
I think you are making broad generalizations here without actually digging deep and examining the underlying assumptions made by the creators of these statistical measures. It's true that the academic community regards the faculty of Stanford to be a cut above Duke's or Stanford's but how much of this is based of off their extensive knowledge of the professors at these various schools rather than just mere historical perception? The dean/provost of Ursinus College knows that Stanford is a research powerhouse so he/she is going to give the school a very high PA score, but how much specific knowledge that this individual have of the Stanford faculty that is based off of objective data and not tainted by individual bias, historical reputation, media coverage, influence of other accessible faculty members, etc.? I'm not trying to argue that the Duke faculty is on par with the Stanford faculty because I do think it is a slight cut lower. How though can the deans of other universities measure this difference statistically and more importantly, differentiate between it from year to year? They can't, at least, not accurately. If we are to take the PA seriosuly as a valid statistical rating, then I don't think we can see differences of 0.1 or 0.2 as being "significant" and differences of 0.5 or 0.6 as "extremely significant". I can accept that the PA gives an extremely general idea of scholarly reputation but not much more than that. The faculty of the top 100 schools in the country all have outstanding faculties and in my opinion, students should rely on other factors in making their college choice at the undergraduate level. The faculty of Michigan, Duke, Dartmouth, Penn, etc. are EQUAL and the faculties of HYPSM are SLIGHTLY better.</p>
<p>The true difference between Duke and Stanford is selectivity, student preference and academic/financial resources per student. Stanford's acceptance rate is significantly lower and its yield is significantly better, which indicates that the top students in the country clear prefer one school over the other. I'm sure if we had the statistics to dig a little deeper, we would find that the difference between the top 5-10% of the student bodies at Duke and Stanford would be palpable. I suspect the top several hundred students in each Stanford class have national level accomplishments. Had I been accepted to Stanford, I would have gone there over Duke because of the opportunity to interact with the stronger and more diverse student body as well as enjoy the tangible benefits of going to a school with a much higher endowment per student, not the much "stronger" faculty. At the top 100 universties, the qualifications of the faculty should be more than enough from school #1 to #100 to satisy any student's intellectual thirst at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not trying to argue that the Duke faculty is on par with the Stanford faculty because I do think it is a slight cut lower. How though can the deans of other universities measure this difference statistically and more importantly, differentiate between it from year to year? They can't, at least, not accurately.
[/quote]
I don't see anyone complaining about USNWR's graduate departmental ranking (which is basically departmental PA) using the same argument. If you buy in the grad departmental ranking, it's a matter of measuring the composite departmental strengths to get a picture of overall faculty strength of each institution. The PA correlates quite well with that. Take for example Stanford vs. Duke:</p>
<p>Department ... Duke ... Stanford
PA ................ 4.4 ...... 4.9
Business ......... 14 ....... 1
Engineering ..... 35 ....... 2
Math .............. 21 ....... 2
Statistics ........ 6 ......... 1
Computer Sci ... 20 ....... 1
Biological Sci ... 12 ....... 1
Chemistry ....... 43 ....... 1
Physics .......... 29 ........ 1
Earth Sci ........ 34 ........ 2
Economics ...... 21 ........ 3
English ........... 12 ........ 4
History ........... 15 ........ 4
Political Sci ...... 8 ......... 2
Psychology ...... 28 ........ 1
Sociology ........ 14 ........ 6
Education ........ NR ....... 1</p>
<p>How much is Stanford's faculty reputation and scholarly excellence better than Duke's? That much. You don't the deans of these universities pay attention to the USNWR and NRC rankings ... sure they do.</p>
<p>Duke is, if anything, overrated as the above indicates. The power of the herd and marketing.</p>
<p>You've got to be kidding me. The difference in department strength between the #1 school and the #50 school is almost negligible at the undergraduate level. How is going to the school with the #8 Political Science department rather than the #2 one relevant to my experience in college? I'm still going to get a great education in that subject, regardless of whether a Nobel Laureate or a PhD teaches the subject.</p>
<p>Evil Asian Dictator: He argues for whatever is in Duke's favor.</p>
<p>Always.</p>
<p>The difference in department strength between the #1 school and the #50 school is almost negligible at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>Wrong.</p>
<p>How is going to the school with the #8 Political Science department rather than the #2 one relevant to my experience in college?</p>
<p>There can be big differences in which upper level classes are offered, and quality of faculty. MIT is considered 1st in what I want to do, and they offer about 4 classes in my area each semester. Michigan is 4th, and offers 1-2 classes a semester in it. You go down a little further, and most schools probably only average 1 per semester (intro class every other semester, graduate topics class every other semester).</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the top 100 universties, the qualifications of the faculty should be more than enough from school #1 to #100 to satisy any student's intellectual thirst at the undergraduate level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are reasons why some profs are paid higher than others. I, for one, would be far more excited to learn math from Einstein, even if we're talking about hs math, then to learn the same subject from a no-name math prof.</p>
<p>^^^^
Ya but if you sign up for "Einstein", he won't be the one teaching the class. It will be the grad TA.</p>
<p>profs give lectures, TAs participate in discussion sections. profs still teach, and TAs are there to aid students to learn and they assist profs by grading exams, etc. Great, respected, and well-known profs are influential in inspiring the students to learn with more motivation and curiosity. Regular, 'no-name' profs are still sufficient in teaching necessary materials, but, that isn't the whole picture. The strong faculty is also important in developing the paths for the research opportunities for students and the university as a whole. Or, am I missing something?</p>
<p>
Faculty achievement gap at Duke is a little more than just a "slight cut lower" than Stanford:</p>
<p>Current NAS members:
Stanford: 126
Duke: 18</p>
<p>Current NAE members:
Stanford: 86
Duke: 3</p>
<p>Current Nobel Laureates:
Stanford: 16
Duke: 1</p>
<p>It's distinction of academic programs that PA score is measuring and faculty achievements deliver that distinction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the top 100 universties, the qualifications of the faculty should be more than enough from school #1 to #100 to satisy any student's intellectual thirst at the undergraduate level.
[/quote]
You have grossly underestimated the intellectual desire of today's students. Many aspiring undergrad students are taking grad level classes and undergrad research is very common. Do you believe that all of the top 100 schools are equal in these aspects and provide the same opportunities for their undergrad students?</p>
<p>To give you an example of how common undergrad research is nowadays, the University of Washington reports that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Every year, 7,000 undergraduates participate in research (that's about 25% of the undergrad student body).</li>
<li>100% of Materials Science & Engineering majors are involved in undergraduate research.</li>
<li>More than 160 undergraduates currently participate in research with the Department of Physics.</li>
</ul>
<p>
[quote]
You've got to be kidding me. The difference in department strength between the #1 school and the #50 school is almost negligible at the undergraduate level.
[/quote]
My post #268 was in response to your discussion with bclintonk on relative faculty strengths of stanford vs. Duke; and in direct response to your claim that "the deans of other universities can't measure the difference statistically and differentiate between it from year to year". </p>
<p>The numbers prove that they can, and the gap is not negligible, at least in the opinion among the academic circle.</p>
<p>"You've got to be kidding me. The difference in department strength between the #1 school and the #50 school is almost negligible at the undergraduate level. How is going to the school with the #8 Political Science department rather than the #2 one relevant to my experience in college?"</p>
<p>EAD, in another thread, it was you who argued that Duke's #2 Biomedical Engineering department was (and I quote), "MUCH stronger" than Michigan's #9 Biomedical Engineering department. You even capped the "MUCH". Now, all of a sudden, you say there is no difference between #1 and #50? You are starting to sound as extreme as me. LOL!</p>
<p>At any rate, it is pretty clear that statistics aren't what separate schools in the PA. The PA measures undergraduate academic reputation. As we can both agree, reputation, like opinion, is subjective. You obviously do not respect the PA, and that's fine, but it is important that you at least understand what the PA sets out to accomplish.</p>
<p>ARe you going off your personal opinion of what you think the quality difference Stanford and Duke? Listen to the USNews editor in his interview with a leading advocate against USNews rankings.</p>
<p>As Editor, he was more than willing to list out and rank his competitors relative his own no questions asked. Rankings and peer comparisons are very common throughout the business world. It is very common to ask a CEO of a company what does he think of his competitor down the road how its doing, what its product model is, what money their making. You'd be a horrible CEO if you didn't know what the market was like and what their competitors are doing.</p>
<p>Industry leaders in journalism and news corporations easily know who is the best and who is the worst and who can reasonably stack up to each other no questions ask. Just like in any industry sector, your competitors can be easily measured relative to each other.</p>
<p>Negligible difference thing must be taken into contexts of say Aerospace defence corporations. To say that the aerospace chief engineers designing and working on the Skunkwork project from MIT was not less equal to the engineers working at an equally profitable, prestigious, and industry leading company like Boeing, that is complete farce.</p>