Is Peer Assessment in USNWR Rankings based on Undergrad or Grad Reputation?

College Search & Selection
281

<p>

Wouldn't most of these distinguished professors be teaching graduate courses? Unless we can identify how many of those Stanford faculty members are involved at the undergraduate level, then I don't really know wha to make of that data besides the fact that Stanford is far superior to Duke in the graduate disciplines of science and engineering(something that I already knew).</p>

282

<p>^ Yep, those 126 NAS members and 86 NAE members EXCLUSIVELY teach graduate students... :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Funny that the only Duke Nobel Laureate currently on staff is running Duke's medical center as Vice Chancellor of science and technology...I wonder how many undergrads he teaches...
||</a> DukeMedNews || Nobel Laureate Peter C. Agre to Join Duke University Medical Center in New Leadership Role</p>

283

<p>EAD just can't accept the fact that Duke is not HYPSM.</p>

284

<p>
[quote]
EAD just can't accept the fact that Duke is not HYPSM.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't that a symptom that plagues the overwhelmng majority of the posters in this thread? </p>

<p>While Duke is quite distant from the level of HYPSM, it can claim to be ... close. And a LOT closer than many of the academic factories that have been discussed in this thread and discussed *ad **nauseam *in the countless "ox and toad" moronic threads debating private versus public schools and the impact of the notorious Peer Assessment.</p>

285

<p>PA is not in Duke's favor xiggi. That's why people like you are so quick to dismiss it.</p>

286

<p>Without PA scores xiggi, almost none of the public school's rated in USNWR would be in the top 50, let alone top 25. Obviously you think that is correct and fair. Many of us disagree.</p>

287

<p>

Some stats to chide my dear friend xiggi and incite the private vs. public debate...:D</p>

<p>Stanford faculty: 1,829
Berkeley faculty: 1,723</p>

<p>Current Nobel Laureates:
Stanford: 16
Berkeley: 7</p>

<p>Pulitzer Prizes:
Stanford: 4
Berkeley: 4</p>

<p>MacArthur Fellows:
Stanford: 23
Berkeley: 28</p>

<p>National Academy of Science Members:
Stanford: 132
Berkeley: 131</p>

<p>National Academy of Engineering Members:
Stanford: 85
Berkeley: 85</p>

<p>American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellows:
Stanford: 239
Berkeley: 226</p>

<p>Wolf Foundation Prizes:
Stanford: 7
Berkeley: 4</p>

<p>National Medal of Science Winners:
Stanford: 20
Berkeley: 14</p>

<p>Fields Medal in Mathematics:
Stanford: 0
Berkeley: 3</p>

<p>Stanford</a> University Facts: Faculty
National</a> rankings & faculty honors - UC Berkeley</p>

288

<p>You realize that the PA score is the most fundamenta building block of any ranking?</p>

<p>You do realize that the Dean of Admissions from UC Berkeley admitted that by adding those ridiculous factors in addition to PAs such as financial resources, admission ratings, and graduate rentetion that it actually HURT publics? Top 10 had 3 publics and top 21 had 7 publics when it was just PAs.</p>

<p>To think that you remove PAs and keep the other scores is JUST the opposite of the chronology and history of the USNews ranking system itself.</p>

<p>You don't remove the PAs because it is fundamental and HELPS the publics tremendously. Alternatively, you hurt the Publics the most by removing the PA, which you don't do because fundamentally, PAs are crucial in so many respects that you can't remove it because it existed since the dawn of rankings itself. You remove criterias that go against public institutions that does favor private ones.</p>

<p>Financial resources, admission selectivity, and graduate retention. Straight from President of UC System's mouth.</p>

289

<p>In retrospect, PAs give a even players leveling fields for both private and publics to be compared as apples to apples.</p>

<p>Duke's PA definitely is not a 4.9, which all of the HYPSM are lol. Therefore in the eyes of Presidents, Provosts, Deans...Duke must not be HYSPM material.</p>

290

<p>^ Yale is 4.8. HPSM is 4.9.</p>

291

<p>^^ actually, as was said, Yale's is a 4.8. Not that a .1 difference matters much.</p>

292

<p>
[quote]
PA is not in Duke's favor xiggi. That's why people like you are so quick to dismiss it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you for letting me know WHY I am so quick to dismiss the PA. I never would have thought I did not like the PA because it did not support ... Duke. And, Duke from all places. /smiles</p>

<p>In the meantime, I'll assume that you do NOT really know my position about the PA. While I do not like its current application, allow me to repeat I would love to see it expanded all the way as to regain its one illustrous and grandiose past. I would like to see nothing better than a full ranking based on the PA as long as there would be one caveat respected: MAKE THE CRITERIA ABSOLUTELY CLEAR and allow the reader to know what in the world is being assessed! </p>

<p>Yes, that would also bring an end to this tiring debate where actors seem to forget what they wrote a mere few weeks before. Right now, the PA is WHATEVER ONE WANTS IT TO BE! Go back to "older debates" and you'll find utter confusion about the PA methodology. Even the USNews has been known to provide contradictory explanations depending the edition. </p>

<p>The best explanation is that the PA is a subjective assessment of the reputation of a ... school academic reputation. What constitutes an academic reputation is obviously entirely in the eye of the beholder. If that beholder happens to be a Dean or a Provost, so be it. If that beholder happens to be a low-level administrative hired help ... so be it as well. After all, who cares!</p>

<p>Here is the reality: the Peer Assessment SHOULD be an important metric. However, there are no indication whatsoever that there is any degree of integrity or real knowledge in the responses. However, we DO have accounts of admission of manipulation and lack of knowledge. Thus the statement "in the eyes of Presidents, Provosts, Deans" requires a huge leap of faith. </p>

<p>So, what's the conclusion: a pretty simplistic one. People who enjoy seeing their schools "earning" a PA that yields a higher ranking do support it ...blindly and obsessively. People who find fault with the current use and methodology of the PA criticize it with equal zeal and subjectivity. Both sides have little difficulty finding "sources" to back up their chosen arguments. And none become wiser!</p>

<p>In the end, there is NO doubt that the current PA includes data that is and should NOT be part of an assessment of an undergraduate institution. There are few doubts that the responses were universally provided by people who understood the instructions or even cared about the survey. </p>

<p>So, I think we should all hope for a better and expanded PA, especially if it could bring an end to this asinine bickering about something few here took a modicum of time to study and understand.</p>

293

<p>

Absolutely. HYPSM>Duke>Michigan, Berkeley</p>

294

<p>
[quote]
HYPSM>Duke>Michigan, Berkeley

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More like, HYPSM > Duke=Michigan=Berkeley</p>

<p>Get off your high horse.</p>

295

<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't most of these distinguished professors be teaching graduate courses? Unless we can identify how many of those Stanford faculty members are involved at the undergraduate level, then I don't really know wha to make of that data...

[/quote]

This is another of those idle myths floating around CC-land. Distinguished professors do teach undergraduate courses. Many of them actually enjoy doing so ... that's why they choose to be professors.</p>

<p>For example, all faculties of the ChE department at Michigan are expected to teach two classes most years, at least one of them at the undergraduate level. I just checked their time schedule and this is still the practice today.</p>

<p>It is the same when I was at Wisconsin. I knew all the professors in the department as I've sat in most of their classes. And we did have quite a number of distinguished professors as we were #1 back then.</p>

<p>p.s. Why would distinguished professors prefer to teach graduate courses rather than undergrad?</p>

296

<p>Actually in PA, HYPSM>Berkeley>Michigan>Duke. Wow, Duke is 4th tier.</p>

297

<p>^^ *actually<a href="lol">/I</a> in PA, HPSM > Y=Berkeley > Michigan > Duke</p>

298

<p>I stand corrected. :-)</p>

299

<p>
[quote]
Too bad Stanford students can run circles around Berkeley students academically. It's not even close. Not even kind of close. So could Duke students for that matter.

[/quote]

More like perform better on a 3-hour standardized, multiple choice test in which methods for improving scores are easily taught. WOW!</p>

300

<p>Especially where the tests can be superscored.</p>