<p>" However, in the field of academia, UMich and Cornell are equal peers.
I would like inputs regarding my post (except for rjkofnovi who I will go out of my way to ignore)."</p>
<p>THAT WAS MY POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE! You finally agree with it. Geez!</p>
<p>“sefago: Like I said, rjkofnovi is full of contradictions. He’s lucky this isn’t 1800s Europe or Imperial Japan. Contradiction could get you killed those days.”</p>
<p>Where did you get the idea that i am full of contradictions MrPrince? I stated right from the start that Michigan is a peer of Princeton and Cornell in engineering. Someone else stated that Michigan is not a peer of either school overall. I stated that Michigan is an academic peer of Cornell, but not of Princeton. I was refuted. I showed the only survey that I could think of to prove my point. It offended a poster here who feels the survey is flawed. You jumped on the bandwagon with the other poster and started to make comments about my intelligence. There was no grey area with my statements. Normally, I like to make my comments short and to the point. That’s the way I treat CC and will continue to do so. I don’t expect a response from you, since you have already decided to ignore me. Just don’t expect me to “leave” since I don’t agree with your remarks. This is still America, the last time I looked, and I’m entitled to my opinions in a general open forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you believe I am talking of Canadians from my- I have to say- badly constructed sentence. I meant international students from outside canada. I am no expert in anything. I just have a set of beliefs based on my observations and interactions with other people. I have family in a lot of places and do a fair bit of travelling. International students who are interested in schools in canada would typically find out that the maclean ranking is the best type of ranking they can get. </p>
<p>Yes, I believe it from talking to lots of international students. They are generally interested in the opinion of that school in the country and their home country. Its common sense that domestic standings give a better idea of undergraduate quality than international graduate standings. British people dont take the QS very seriously when considering education in their country. They only do when they want to claim that british schools are as “good” as US schools. They rarely use this ranking for domestic purposes. </p>
<p>Infact, I wager that very few people look at rankings. People on CC are a rare breed. </p>
<p>As I said people pick or choose what they want to prove a point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think you should be bothered. I am severely outnumbered here as I expected. The problem is that if one on CC makes the mistake of criticizing a public school as a personal opinion- you can expect at least three people to show up. Usually, two from Michigan and One berkeley. If you are lucky you might get another famous berkeley champion. Sometimes if you are really lucky you might get the whole public school crew.</p>
<p>sefago, how would you feel if people ignorantly criticized your alma matter?</p>
<p>
CC Public School Posse. <em>cracks knuckles</em></p>
<p>“CC Public School Posse”</p>
<p>Hehe! I like the sound of that. I have a pair of shades and a black suit to go with that!</p>
<p>
[ARWU</a> 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp)
So, Asian international students pick Wisconsin over JHU? UCSF over Northwestern? Rockefeller University over Duke? UC Irvine over Vanderbilt? University of Pittsburgh over Brown? Michigan State over Rice? UMiami over Dartmouth? DARTMOUTH ISN’T EVEN IN THE TOP 150! This is the worst ranking I have ever seen in my life and I hope to dear god that no Asian international is actually reading this and using it to select universities at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>Alexandre, every ranking besides USNWR is complete garbarge. The QS Times for instance has schools that jump around dozens of spots each year.</p>
<p>I agree that every ranking is garbage, including the USNWR. Unfortunately, some people will depend on those flawed rankings. From my experience, the three most influential rankings internationally are the QS, the Times and the ARWU. The USNWR is also quite influential in some pockets. One should keep in mind that, thankfully, rankings in general are not as influential as word of mouth and personal research.</p>
<p>Well, judging by the large number of Asian internationals asking me about sciences and engineering at Wisconsin at the Seattle College Fair this weekend, they certainly have taken notice of UW, in part due to the ARWU rankings. </p>
<p>Maybe YOU need to get better information. UW is in the Top 2-3 in research funding and produces new technology and such at a very high rate. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.patentboard.com/Portals/0/docs/ip_2009_usc.pdf[/url]”>http://www.patentboard.com/Portals/0/docs/ip_2009_usc.pdf</a></p>
<p>^ Did they also ask you about the 83 points you guys hung on IU? </p>
<p>Prob not the classiest win…throwing deep when leading by over 70…</p>
<p>Shhhh UCB. Wisky has to play Michigan this weekend. I don’t want you to get them riled up! It could be totally humiliating…</p>
<p>^ We play #6 'furd. Maybe the Blues beat the Reds this weekend…ruining Rose Bowl dreams together… </p>
<p><em>Though I realize having 2 Pac-10 teams in BCS bowl games is better financially…</em></p>
<p>But Alexandre, what is it about the USNWR do you not like? I’m highly interested in your problems with the rankings.
I am however well aware of the issues of Forbes, ARWU, and OS/Time. </p>
<p>
Just…go away…</p>
<p>^^Let me make it clearer for you, since you are obviously very pompous. </p>
<p>“I stated right from the start that Michigan is a peer of Princeton and Cornell IN ENGINEERING.”</p>
<p>You clearly and conveniently neglected the final two words. Michigan is a peer of Cornell and Princeton is ENGINEERING according to the undergraduate rankings at USNWR.</p>
<p>You highlighted the following sentence:</p>
<p>“I stated that Michigan is an academic peer of Cornell, but not of Princeton.”</p>
<p>What I typed is this:</p>
<p>"Someone else stated that Michigan is not a peer of either school OVERALL. I stated that Michigan is an academic peer of Cornell, but not of Princeton. "</p>
<p>Once again you eliminated important words to prove whatever inane point you’re trying to make. </p>
<p>The insulting remarks you have made to me do NOTHING to refute what I said. There were no contradictory statements in my sentences at all. These ridiculous insults are not appreciated or warranted. However, if you just want me to go away, there is an ignore option here on CC that you are more than welcome to use.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for Alex, but I’ll say that USNWR weightings are arbitrary and don’t really reflect academics. Including categories like percentage of alumni giving and arbitrary “financial resources” weightings that favor universities with medical schools is a problem… </p>
<p>Too much of the ranking also focuses on inputs.</p>
<p>MrPrince, UCB has pretty much summed it up well. The USNWR formula is designed to favor certain types of schools over others. Based on how it weighs certain varriables and inputs, and on how universities choose to present many of those inputs, the output will yield a result that seems very random…and unstable.</p>
<p>For example, some universities report smaller class sizes by having the same professor teach multiple (some times as many as 4) sections of the same class. Of course the underlying question here is, does the USNWR formula take into account the need of having smaller classes. Not all classes require intimate settings. The question the USWNR or any other ranking should answer is; does the university provide an aqeduate atmosphere for students to learn.</p>
<p>Another example is the reporting of SAT and ACT scores. Most private universities will super score SAT results while reporting only the highest half of ACT scores. </p>
<p>Yet another example is student to faculty ratio. Private universities typically report ratios not including graduate students in affected programs while public universities will include graduate students in those programs. MIT is one of the few private schools that includes graduate students.</p>
<p>Alumni donation rates clearly favors smaller schools because it is easier to reach alums. 22 of the 25 institutions with the highest alumni donation rates are LACs. There is a reason for this and it has nothing to do with satisfaction. It is easier to reach 20,000 alums than it is to reach 100,000 alums and it is easier to reach 80,000 alums than it is to reach 300,000 alums. Of course, it goes without saying that private universities have a much longer history of soliciting alumni donatios than publics because until the 1980s, state funding was more than sufficient to support operating costs. Many private universities resport to interesting methods, offering to devide donations into five parts and allocating each part to a different fiscal year. Furthermore, with the recent events at Cornell and Dartmouth, it seems like alums are actually bullied into giving to the schools, something public universities can never (and I am glad for it) do.</p>
<p>The list goes on and on.</p>
<p>^Those are very interesting reasons.
How do you propose we measure this? </p>
<p>As for any rankings to be false/misleading…do you believe people will question them? For instance, if I show the USNWR to a group of people who have never seen it, do you really believe a majority of them will think deeply and question the rankings? It has never happened to anyone I’ve showed USNWR to.
If you ask why does it matter if people would question rankings or not…then what is lay prestige? Won’t lay prestige form from these rankings? Isn’t lay prestige what half of CCers are obsessed with?
How is this for a solution: Accept the rankings the way they are? I’m using a question mark as I’m not entirely sure about this situation myself.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand this concept of having peers in certain departments and then peers as a whole. I strongly doubt that Harvard does not consider Boston University as a peer–that will be blatant elitist. Get that through your head.
You make it seem that HYPSM are only peers with eachother and that other schools aren’t. THIS IS NOT HOW UNIVERSITIES WORK. Half of CCers don’t seem to understand this. You among the worst of them, which is why I’m telling you to leave.
To protect your university’s honor, I’ll correct you in saying that Princeton and UMich ARE peers/comparable in every way. However, Princeton is more desirable and prestigious.</p>
<p>^^We are all entitled to our opinions. Because you “don’t understand” someone else’s, doesn’t mean that they should just “leave.” That is called “censorship” and is not the American way. </p>
<p>“I don’t understand this concept of having peers in certain departments and then peers as a whole.”</p>
<p>Well that is your misfortune. Maybe you should take the time to learn it.</p>
<p>Below is a quote from MrPrince:</p>
<p>“You among the worst of them, which is why I’m telling you to leave.”</p>
<p>Here is some of your own advice that I suggest you take. It is a quote from another thread:</p>
<p>“Sorry RML sir, sefago has every right to express his opinion. In fact, I feel he’s completely right.”</p>
<p>Now what are we to infer from the above quotes? It’s quite obvious in my opinion. As long as MrPrince agrees with your point of view, you have a right to express it. If not, you just need “to leave.”</p>
<p>“Physician, heal thyself!”</p>