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

College Search & Selection
381

<p>UCB, I know we would disagree on a few elements since we have disagreed on them before. </p>

<p>Regarding the SAT, my position might surprise you. </p>

<p>I believe that the UC system has placed sizeable and questionable importance on standardized tests. For instance, I think that one of the most misguided policies was to accept the basic scores of certain language tests, especially tests that would not challenge a native fourth grader. To avoid any confusion, I refer to tests such as SATII Chinese or Korean, and not Spanish or French.</p>

<p>As far as the UC in general, I believe that it has failed to find an adequate balance in addressing the need for increased diversity in admissions. What has happened in California in the education sector and at the UC in particular during the last three decades is hardly a model that should be emulated by any other state.</p>

382

<p>^ OK! Good...I think we agree on a lot more stuff than our posts indicate.
Regarding the SAT II, UC seems to have heard your voice and is considering removing those tests from requirements...</p>

<p>SAT</a> subject tests may be dropped by UC - Los Angeles Times

[quote]
Ironically, some of the subject tests’ biggest fans are minority families who speak a language other than English. Students who are fluent in a foreign language for which there is a subject exam, such as Chinese, Spanish and Hebrew, are allowed to take such a test and many count on doing well on it.</p>

<p>For example, Fairfax junior Sherry Yi, whose family speaks Korean at home, said she is going to take the Korean-language subject exam, along with other ones. She expects the Korean test will help her UC application but understands why the subject test requirement is debated.

[/quote]
</p>

383

<p>I tend to avoid these type of threads, because it's a bit comical how people whine about a few spots, steadfastly defend their school even when their arguments don't make much sense, but this was interesting data by bclintonk. FWIW, I'm getting a -.728 correlation for the data, which is pretty strong. Then again, peer assessment and the US News rank correlate .868, and we've got some strong disagreements on where schools should be placed there.</p>

<p>If you use regression analysis and look at the peer assessment with other data in the US News, you can find a strong correlation. Freshman retention, graduation rate, % of students in the top 10%, acceptance rate are all between .70 and .78 in correlation.</p>

<p>It should be noted, that % of classes below 20, % of classes over 50, alumni giving rate, and % of professors full time, had a low percentage. I believe we had a discussion earlier about US News and what is useful, and alumni giving and % full time were two things that were seen as not important.</p>

384

<p>Why would alumni giving not be important? It's a measure of how well-off financially the graduates of a school are and how satisfied they were with the quality of education they received. The alumni giving rank is probably just as useful as the PA, that is to say not that useful when looked at individually. However when looked at alongside other factors, it forms a picture of the overall quality of a school at the undergraduate level.</p>

385

<p>
[quote]
It's a measure of how well-off financially the graduates of a school are and how satisfied they were with the quality of education they received.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What a naively simplistic view of how things work. Honestly, it's not that cut and dry; what it measures is not that clear. Many other factors go into whether a grad gives money back to the school.</p>

386

<p>

Why does it always have to be that way? You can get a great education in philosophy at the undergraduate level at many schools: Penn, Michigan, Berkeley, Duke, etc. With a subject like philosophy, the minds who surround you in the classroom are just as important as the one sitting in front of the classroom. Your classmates are the ones who you will discuss ideas with primarily, both in the classroom and in the library. At the private colleges, you are more likely to find intelligent people from whom you can draw valuable insights from. Also, what about grants to study abroad or do some philosophy research with some of the top philosophers overseas in a place like Ancient Greece, the birthplace of scientific reason and the cradle of western civilization? Can the top publics even come close to competing with a Yale, a Harvard, a Duke or a Penn in the area of financial resources for students on a per capita basis? What about class sizes? Should the student's first several experiences with philosophy classes at the undergraduate level be in classrooms that are like auditoriums with hundreds upon hundreds of kids, or should they be capped at say about a 100 so at least some meaningful discussion can take place in the classroom?</p>

<p>Also, who knows if a student will actually BECOME a philosophy major in college? Is there not even the possibility that the student will switch majors because he/she becomes disenchanted with the field of study? Who here can honestly say that they ended college fulfilling the exact same academic goals they set out with upon beginning freshman year? What then? Gee, then it's tough luck for you if you chose to attend Wisconsin undergrad over Duke if you now want to become a doctor, an investment banker, a consultant, a lawyer, an engineer, etc.</p>

<p>The only thing that people who graduate from a certain college for sure share is the name of the diploma at the end. That's the only thing that you can bet on when you enter college. Do you really want yours to say "Michigan" and "Berkeley" instead of "Harvard", "Duke" or "Penn"?</p>

387

<p>

What am I missing here? Financial well-being and happiness with the quality of the college experience? Oh yeah, I already mentioned those two.:rolleyes:</p>

388

<p>"The only thing that people who graduate from a certain college for sure share is the name of the diploma at the end. That's the only thing that you can bet on when you enter college. Do you really want yours to say "Michigan" and "Berkeley" instead of "Harvard", "Duke" or "Penn"?" </p>

<p>I am not sure where or how Duke and Penn fit in with Harvard. I can see Princeton, Yale and even perhaps Stanford and MIT. But Duke and Penn? Duke and Penn are on par with Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan and Northwestern. Between those 9 universities, I say go for fit. I was accepted into 8 of those 9 schools back in the Spring of 1992...we all know which college was best suited for me. </p>

<p>"With a subject like philosophy, the minds who surround you in the classroom are just as important as the one sitting in front of the classroom. Your classmates are the ones who you will discuss ideas with primarily, both in the classroom and in the library. At the private colleges, you are more likely to find intelligent people from whom you can draw valuable insights from. Also, what about grants to study abroad or do some philosophy research with some of the top philosophers overseas in a place like Ancient Greece, the birthplace of scientific reason and the cradle of western civilization? Can the top publics even come close to competing with a Yale, a Harvard, a Duke or a Penn in the area of financial resources for students on a per capita basis? What about class sizes? Should the student's first several experiences with philosophy classes at the undergraduate level be in classrooms that are like auditoriums with hundreds upon hundreds of kids, or should they be capped at say about a 100 so at least some meaningful discussion can take place in the classroom?"</p>

<p>Can you prove any of this EAD? Can you prove that students who take Philosphy classes at one elite university are necessarily going to be smarter than students who take Philosophy classes at another elite university? Philosophy attracts only the most serious and devoted intellectuals. The two classes of Philosophy that I took at Michigan (both 100 level classes) were taught by professors and had fewer than 40 students in them. I struggled to get the mean in both classes and I consider myself pretty smart. I was probably among the top third at Michigan, but in those Philosophy classes, I was probably around the average. The discussions we had in and out of class were quite elevated considering most students taking those classes with Freshmen and Sophomores. You seem to think that faculty at Cal and Michigan (arguably two of the top 10 faculties on Earth) are going to compromise their standards? They don't. Students at Cal or Michigan are going to be expected to perform at the highest levels. Students of equal calibre at any university will take similar classes. You aren't going to have a lot of average students taking challening and advanced classes in any field. Conversely, not many driven and talented students are going to take intro-level classes or easy advanced level classes. In short, students of equal ability with flock together.</p>

<p>Can you prove that students at Cal or Michigan will have fewer research and study abroad opportunities, grants for research or be exposed to larger classes? Over 70%-75% of classes at Cal and Michigan have fewer than 30 students, as opposed to 80%-85% at most elite private universities. That's hardly a significant distinction. Although I did not look at the student body at large, I know that most students who wished to study abroad had multiple options to chose from. Reources and student quality aren't a problem at schools like Cal and Michigan. Yes, students enrolled in non-academic disciplines such as Sports Management/Science, Nursing, Dental Hygene etc... aren't going to have the most impressive academic stats, but overall, the quality of students enrolled in the colleges of Arts and Sciences, Engineering and Business is stellar and the resources availlable to those students are impresive.</p>

<p>"What am I missing here? Financial well-being and happiness with the quality of the college experience? Oh yeah, I already mentioned those two."</p>

<p>Do you honestly think Duke alums are wealthier or happier with their college experience than students at other elites with giving rates ranging between 15% and 40%? LOL! How do you begin to measure such a claim? Don't you think size of the alumni body and history of alumni solicitation have anything to do with it?</p>

389

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/412606-how-calculate-universitie-s-peer-assessment-score.html?highlight=how+to+calculate%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/412606-how-calculate-universitie-s-peer-assessment-score.html?highlight=how+to+calculate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

390

<p>Annual giving is a realtively new idea at most state schools as until recently they relied on the state and often received generous financial support. There was an understanding that they would not try to compete with the private schools in the state for donations as that would seem unfair as they already got substantial tax money from all the taxpayers in the state. In the last 10-15 years that has changed. In many states the government has more needs than tax money and the universities have not received the level of aid they used to get. So they started fundraising basically from scratch. Most had their first big endowment campaigns in the last 10 years. And some are now in the Top 20 of all schools in TOTAL fundraisng. They don't have the people or time to hit every grad with several mailings and calls a year but they do very well in bringing in big donations. Here's a list of the Top 20 fundraisers from last year.</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford U. $832,344,826<br></li>
<li>Harvard U. $613,985,000 </li>
<li>U. of Southern California $469,646,622<br></li>
<li>Johns Hopkins U. $430,455,336 </li>
<li>Columbia U. $423,849,107 </li>
<li>Cornell U. $406,925,075 </li>
<li>U. of Pennsylvania $392,420,770<br></li>
<li>Yale U. $391,315,420 - </li>
<li>Duke U. $372,328,154<br></li>
<li>U. of California at Los Angeles $364,779,738<br></li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology $329,158,304<br></li>
<li>U. of Chicago $328,328,020<br></li>
<li>U. of Wisconsin at Madison $325,336,779 </li>
<li>U. of Washington $300,199,601<br></li>
<li>U. of Michigan $293,403,123<br></li>
<li>U. of Minnesota $288,750,059<br></li>
<li>New York U. $287,587,458<br></li>
<li>U. of Virginia $282,610,619<br></li>
<li>Indiana U. $278,553,274<br></li>
<li>U. of California at San Francisco $251,945,342</li>
</ol>

391

<p>


</p>

<p>I do not think most people consider Penn, Duke and Columbia for that matter to be on par with the other schools you mentioned. Also in that list WUSTL seems to fit pretty well. Penn, Columbia and Duke are considered a Notch Above those others and WUSTL as on par with Hopkins and Northwestern type schools</p>

392

<p>Define "most people" Bescraze. Are you talking about the academic and Corporate recruiting world or are you referring to CCers?</p>

393

<p>For the sake of comparison, here is the 2004 version of the list posted by Barrons.</p>

<p>Top Fundraising Colleges and Universities
Total Amount Raised, 2004</p>

<ol>
<li> Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) $540,333,491</li>
<li> Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford, Calif.) 524,213,993</li>
<li> Cornell University (Ithaca, N.Y.) 385,936,235</li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pa.) 332,829,949</li>
<li> University of Southern California (Los Angeles, Calif.) 322,090,595</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Md.) 311,573,165</li>
<li> Columbia University (New York, N.Y.) 290,618,180</li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, Mass.) 289,838,445</li>
<li> Yale University (New Haven, Conn.) 264,771,841</li>
<li>Univ. of California, Los Angeles (Los Angeles, Calif.) 262,148,586</li>
<li>Duke University (Durham, N.C.) 254,999,006</li>
<li>Univ. of Texas at Austin (Austin, Tex.) 252,175,348</li>
<li>Indiana University (Bloomington, Ind.) 248,458,068</li>
<li>University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minn.) 245,682,841</li>
<li>New York University (New York, N.Y.) 214,863,578</li>
<li>Univ of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, Calif.) 213,996,780</li>
<li>Univ. of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Mich.) 206,165,782</li>
<li>Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) 203,273,515</li>
<li>University of Washington (Seattle, Wash.) 195,762,442</li>
<li>Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 186,934,586</li>
</ol>

394

<p>Contributions to colleges and universities grew 9.4 percent to a record $28 billion in 2006 according to a report released yesterday by the Council for Aid to Education.</p>

<p>Just over half of the $28 billion raised in 2006 came directly from individuals. Alumni giving—the traditional base of higher education giving—grew by 18.3 percent in 2006, while individuals other than alumni increased their giving by 14 percent.</p>

<p>The top fund-raiser was Stanford University with $911.6 million, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S. university in a single year. Harvard University, which raised $595 million, placed second. </p>

<ol>
<li> Stanford $911.16</li>
<li> Harvard $594.94</li>
<li> Yale $433.46</li>
<li> U. of Pennsylvania $409.49</li>
<li> Cornell $406.23</li>
<li> U. of Southern California $405.75</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins $377.34</li>
<li> Columbia $377.28</li>
<li> Duke $332.03</li>
<li> U.of Wisconsin-Madison $325.94</li>
</ol>

<p>Source: Council for Aid to Education</p>

395

<p>UW did not report on time in 2004 due to an inhouse mixup. Another source had the number</p>

<p><a href="http://mup.asu.edu/Top200-III/2_2004_top200_giving.xls%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mup.asu.edu/Top200-III/2_2004_top200_giving.xls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The next year was very good.</p>

<p><a href="http://mup.asu.edu/Top200-III/2_2005_top200_giving.xls%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mup.asu.edu/Top200-III/2_2005_top200_giving.xls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

396

<p>

I agree with you Alexandre that the academic world views all those large research universities as roughly equal. Academics might even consider Cal, Michigan, Columbia and Chicago to be a notch higher than those other schools perhaps. However, when it comes to the corporate world, all the evidence available seems to point contrary to your statement. The corporate world is probably one place where there is extreme stratification and pretty big distinctions are drawn between the top schools. There's no way they view HYPSM as being "elite" and the next 50 universities as being on the "same level". There are a few threads out there on this site in which current insiders in industries like IBanking and Consulting shared their views on how the top schools rank. This, in addition, to the profiles of analysts and associates available on the websites of banks and lists posted on various sites by people who list the breakdown of people in their SA IB class by what undergrad they attend are the only current indicators we have. The information, although suspect, seems to form a definite consensus. This is how I would rank all the schools that you listed as being "on par":</p>

<p>TIER 1
Penn(Wharton)</p>

<p>TIER 2
Columbia
Duke
Penn CAS</p>

<p>TIER 3
Chicago
Cornell
Northwestern
UMich Ross</p>

<p>TIER 4
Michigan LSA
Hopkins</p>

397

<p>

It's very possible that Duke alums are happier with their college experience than students at other elites. A gorgeous campus, vibrant social life, iconic basketball team, warm weather...sure why not? It's irrelevant to exactly pinpoint why alumni at some schools have higher giving rates than others. Even if it has to do with the factors you mentioned, the fact remains that the private schools have richer kids than the public schools for the most part. This is a GOOD thing. Connections are pretty important right? Wouldn't you want your kids to mingle with and eventually join the ranks of the rich and the priviledged? That might be the number one reason to go to a place like Harvard. After all, Steve Ballmer wouldn't be in the position he was in now at Microsoft if he had not been the poker buddy of Bill Gates in college.</p>

398

<p>I agree with everything you said evil-asian_dictator, I was referring primarily to the corporate world and the general educated/wealthy laymen perceptive, and not neccessarily a purely academic one. Your list seems correct to me, I think people on CC tend to bunch a lot of schools together as purely equal, when in fact they are not. A school like Columbia or Penn is not equal to a school like Michigan/Hopkins in peoples mind. Maybe's its just to assuage peoples ego, but out of the top 25 National University's, there are definite distinctions. They are all great, but they are not all the same.</p>

399

<p>EAD, you described the college experience at many elites, including Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Michigan, Northwestern and Stanford. All those schools have incredible campus atmospheres. Students at all those universities absolutely adore their college experience. And the number of students who come from afluent families at those universities is significant.</p>

<p>As for your grouping of schools for IBanking and Consulting, I don't see a difference between groups 2 and 3. And even them, you missed out Cal, particularly Haas.</p>

<p>In short EAD, you seem to have a need to segregate universities. You really don't have to resort to such petty elitistism since you attend a great university. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and do it. Such an attitude will not hurt you in the short term and in the long term, well, we all know what Keynes had to say about that! Just don't share your view of world order with too many people once you hit the real world. I am not sure your colleagues will appreciate your point of view.</p>

400

<p>
[quote]
Your list seems correct to me, I think people on CC tend to bunch a lot of schools together as purely equal

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, no, on CC, there's a much higher tendency to make school-by-school distinctions. I've seen this countless times here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe's its just to assuage peoples ego, but out of the top 25 National University's, there are definite distinctions. They are all great, but they are not all the same.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are some 4,200 colleges in the US. Being ranked 16 instead of 25 is the difference between being better than 99.996% of US colleges and being better than 99.994% of US colleges. That is a difference of .002, and so making fine distinctions between the two really is the epitome of "splitting hairs."</p>