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

College Search & Selection
141

<p>keefer,
In engineering circles, your comments probably have more merit than my earlier comments. I'm in agreement with you if your comment is that U Michigan's profile among engineers is in the Top 10 or Top 15. </p>

<p>But I think you overreact in your view re U Michigan as an institution and its national profile. Look, it's a good school. So also are places like BC, NYU, UNC, UT that I mentioned earlier. I hold these colleges in high regard. Saying that I (and virtually everyone I know outside of academia) hold others, eg, Dartmouth, Duke, Rice, etc, in higher regard is not a slap to any of them or to U Michigan. I'm pretty comfortable that I am in the consensus.</p>

<p>barrons,
The great majority of colleges have limited reputations outside of their home regions. The exceptions would be HYPSM and, after those, regionalism rules the day for most colleges and their recruiting impact. IMO, Duke would be a good candidate for the next one after HYPSM with the highest profile employers as I think the national awareness and profile of the school, ouside of academia, is very good.</p>

142

<p>keefer,
I agree that Michigan is a great school. I was offered admissions there, and it was one of my top choices. However, my point is that the fact it has a higher PA, which suppose to measure quality at only the undergraduate level, than Duke shows graduate programs influence USNWR schools' undergraduate PA.</p>

143

<p>Where is it written that only IB recruiting in NY is important? They have their ways and that's fine--they certainly have proven to be a bunch of screw-ups time and time again so they have NOTHING to be proud of. Pretty soon the title will have all the cachet of car salesman. Some of them make lots of money too.</p>

<p>Yahoo</a>! Personal Finance: Calculators,Money Advice,Guides,& More</p>

144

<p>^ "Academic quality" for the PA is more of a component of faculty prestige because it is faculty prestige that contributes the most to "academic department reputation/distinguishment/prestige". UMich's faculty is more distinguished than Duke's faculty.</p>

145

<p>"Saying that I (and virtually everyone I know outside of academia) hold others, eg, Dartmouth, Duke, Rice, etc, in higher regard is not a slap to any of them or to U Michigan. I'm pretty comfortable that I am in the consensus."</p>

<p>Maybe, everyone you know thinks the way you do. Can't argue that.</p>

<p>However. I bet more people think more highly of Michigan than Duke, Dartmouth or Rice. More people have heard of Michigan than the other schools mentioned. ;)</p>

146

<p>UCBChemEGrad,
But how many of UMich's world-class faculties actually teach undergrads? When I attended classes there while deciding on which college to attend, all the classes I encountered at the freshman and sophomore levels were taught by TAs. Those TA's teachers may be world-class, but the TAs weren't.</p>

147

<p>If Michigan's faculty are more distinguished than Duke's, they aren't compensated that way. Tossing in Wisconsin.
Average Full Prof, Assoc. Prof and Asst Prof salaries, 2007-2008</p>

<p>Duke $152,600 $102,500 $87,300
Mich $137,000 $89,100 $79,300
Wisc $104,700 $80,300 $69,100</p>

<p>The</a> Chronicle: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey</p>

148

<p>dstark,
I'm sure more people has heard of Michigan than Rice due to Michigan's size. The number of undergrads Michigan has is over eight times that of Rice's. However, who cares if the elementary school teacher who lives next door has not heard of Rice. It's not like he/she will change a Rice undergrad's career. But the people who has the power to affect a person's career - graduate school admissions officers, managers of research labs, etc. - know of Rice.</p>

149

<p>IPBear, I don't think you are telling the truth, the only class that was taught by TA in my entire education at Michigan were Calculus 1 and Calculus 2, and I felt that it was the right way to teach Calculus that way, since the class had 20 people in it, instead of a big lecture hall. And these TAs were one year or in my case, a few months away from finishing their PhD in Math. Both of my teachers, 1 year later were tenure-track professors at some of the best colleges. You have to tell me which class you were in... because I don't believe you.</p>

150

<p>i'm pretty sure we both agree that getting a history degree from Michigan doesn't carry the same weight as Duke in terms of getting jobs in Investment Banking. But they are not that far apart as you seem to think. In the math/science/engineering/business majors, Michigan grads do just as well as Duke grads.</p>

151

<p>hawk, you just never stop with the insults on michigan do you?</p>

<p>you agree with me that michigan engineering is in top 10 or top 15? thanks!</p>

152

<p>


</p>

<p>What a ridiculous argument. Faculty at NYU get paid more than at Duke.
NYU $162,400 $102,600 $90,300</p>

<p>So I guess that makes NYU's faculty more distinguished than Duke's, huh? And Caltech's, and Northwestern's, and MIT's, and Cornell's, and Brown's . . . . Heck, full professors at Yeshiva make more than at all these schools. Must make Yeshiva top 10, huh? Oh, and professors at U Maryland-Baltimore make more than at Emory, Vanderbilt, Brown, and Rice. Must be a terrific faculty, huh?</p>

<p>Where did they teach you to reason? </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm betting that pretty much ALL of Michigan's world-class faculty teach undergrads, though most also teach grad students. Certainly in my major, philosophy, where Michigan had at the time the #4 ranked faculty in the country, every single member of the faculty taught undergrads. I never took a single class from a TA in my four years there, though the TAs did lead some of the discussion sections in big intro classes. But that's pretty common at Harvard and Princeton, too.</p>

153

<p>Despite the lower pay, the other attractions of UW (great research support and facilities, low COL) allow it to compete well with many schools including UM and Duke for top faculty</p>

<p>Credit to UBCChem E for the following data posted earlier in this thread</p>

<p>checked the National Academies of Science and Engineering member directories and pulled some university faculty membership numbers...Here's the data (I think the database hasn't been updated with new members announced this year).</p>

<p>Institution, # NAS members, # NAE members, total, PA score
MIT, 105, 110, 215, 4.9
Stanford, 126, 87, 213, 4.9
Berkeley, 128, 75, 203, 4.8
Harvard, 150, 18, 168, 4.9
Caltech, 73, 30, 103, 4.7
Princeton, 71, 21, 92, 4.9
Wisconsin, 44, 18, 62, 4.1
UCLA, 28, 17, 45, 4.2
Michigan, 19, 22, 41, 4.5
Northwestern, 16, 20, 36
Duke, 18, 3, 21
U Chicago, 38, 1, 39, 4.6
USC, 10, 19, 29, 4.0
WUSTL, 16, 3, 19, 4.1
Rice, 3, 12, 15, 4.0
Vanderbilt, 4, 1, 5, 4.0
Emory, 2, 0, 2, 4.0
Notre Dame, 0, 2, 2, 3.9
Georgetown, 0, 0, 0, 4.0</p>

154

<p>While we are on the subject of faculty and faculty pay, I would like to point out one of the most egregious problems of the U.S. News 'faculty resources' metrics. While they have thankfully started to take into consideration cost of living adjustments by metropolitan area, they do not take into consideration the distribution of faculty across disciplines.</p>

<p>Why is this a problem?</p>

<p>Well, certain faculty, due to market forces, are paid more than other faculty. Economists and engineers come to mind. Others, humanists and life scientists are paid much less.</p>

<p>So any consideration of faculty resources using faculty pay as a proxy, should take distribution of faculty type into consideration. Otherwise the metric (however faulty it is) will be automatically biased against schools with less of a focus on the more professional disciplines.</p>

155

<p>keefer,
I took calculus, writing, communications, and biology classes. Trust me, they were taught by TAs. The TA who taught the biology class was actually an ex-RA who didn't know how to teach.</p>

156

<p>keefer,
Unless you have a different meaning to the word "insult" I don't see how associating U Michigan with BC, NYU, U North Carolina and U Texas can be considered an insult. These are all pretty good darn schools with students and academic environments that are very similar to what one finds at U Michigan. If anything, the faux superiority on the part of U Michigan boosters to students/affiliates of BC, NYU, UNC, UT is the insult.</p>

157

<p>


</p>

<p>Very good point, Red. Also, I wonder whether they separate out the salaries of professional school faculty teaching only at the graduate level---law, business, and medical school faculty, who tend to be paid significantly more than arts & sciences faculty. B-school is tricky, though, because some schools do have undergrad business programs.</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
I never took a single class from a TA in my four years there, though the TAs did lead some of the discussion sections in big intro classes. But that's pretty common at Harvard and Princeton, too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only part I love more about this argument is the regularity at which it is repeated -- in all its misleading splendor. </p>

<p>After a few years on College Confidential, I'd wish that the posters who insist in raising that issue would understand that we DO KNOW the difference between what constitutes a lecture and what constitutes a discussion. We also know who prepares the syllabus, who prepares the assignments, and who grades test/exams, and who offers comments on the papers. Well, I happen to believe that all those elements should have one source, and that it is surely NOT a professor named "STAFF" or some unknown glorified minimum-wage earner.</p>

<p>And, no matter how much lipstick one puts onto the porcine snout, the lecturer/TA combo is NOT the same as a class taught entirely by a full professor. For every decent TA, how many are there who have no aptitude nor dedication to teaching and find their "employment" akin to indentured servitude? From every decent TA, how many are there who barely master spoken English? </p>

<p>The reality is that such arrangements are simply matters of economic and time convenience that benefit the insitututions and provide few --if any-- benefits to students. </p>

<p>Shouldn't cheaper and less competitive instruction come at a ... discount? Oh wait, TA do not really teach. </p>

<p>My bad!</p>

159

<p>
[quote]
Very good point, Red. Also, I wonder whether they separate out the salaries of professional school faculty teaching only at the graduate level---law, business, and medical school faculty, who tend to be paid significantly more than arts & sciences faculty. B-school is tricky, though, because some schools do have undergrad business programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The exclude law and medical, I know. But B-school and engineering programs are tricky.</p>

160

<p>


</p>

<p>Well, I don't disagree with any of this. But unless I'm misremembering, all these things WERE done by the professors---all tenured full professors, all leading lights in their fields---in the introductory Anthropology course I took, and Intro to International Relations, and Intro to American Politics---the only three big (100 or so) classes I ever took at Michigan, all optional courses, by the way, which I took because the professors had well-deserved reputations for brilliance as scholars and in the classroom. The TAs led a once-a-week discussion with a small group, that's it. The professor wrote the syllabus, gave the lectures, gave the assignments, wrote the exams, and to the best of my knowledge graded the exams.</p>

<p>What I find troubling about CC is the frequency with which the private school advocates trot out the the old shibboleth that big lectures are the norm at the top publics. Not so. Look at the figures in US News. At Berkeley, 14% of classes have 50 or more students. At Michigan, 17%. At MIT, 14%. At Harvard, 13%. At UNC-Chapel Hill, 11%. At Princeton, renowned for its undergraduate focus, 10%. Slightly higher on average at the publics, perhaps, but very much in the same ballpark. And I know for a fact those big lecture classes at Harvard and Princeton are taught exactly the same way, with professors designing the course and doing the lectures and TAs in charge of many of the small discussion sections. So what, exactly, is your point?</p>