<p>I thought the 2006 ratings weren't available until tomorrow? If somebody knows what the order is, can you post it?</p>
<p>2006 US News College Rankings LEAKED! </p>
<hr>
<p>Here are the supposed 2006 US News College Rankings. </p>
<p>I got the list from Byerly's post on the Harvard forum. I've seen it on other websites though. </p>
<p><strong>Second number indicates ranking change from 2005</strong></p>
<p>1 Princeton University 0</p>
<p>1 Harvard University 0</p>
<p>3 Yale University 0</p>
<p>4 University of Pennsylvania 0</p>
<p>5 Duke University 0</p>
<p>5 Stanford University 0</p>
<p>7 California Institute of Technology +1</p>
<p>7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology -2</p>
<p>9 Columbia University 0</p>
<p>9 Dartmouth College 0</p>
<p>11 Washington University in St Louis 0</p>
<p>12 Northwestern University -1</p>
<p>13 Cornell University +1</p>
<p>13 John Hopkins University +1</p>
<p>15 Brown University -2</p>
<p>15 University of Chicago -1</p>
<p>17 Rice University 0</p>
<p>18 University of Notre Dame 0</p>
<p>18 Vanderbilt University -1</p>
<p>20 Emory University 0</p>
<p>20 University of California/Berkeley +1</p>
<p>22 Carnegie Mellon University 0</p>
<p>23 Georgetown +2</p>
<p>University of Virginia -1</p>
<p>25 University of California/Los Angeles 0</p>
<p>University of Michigan/Ann Arbor -3</p>
<p>27 Tufts University +1</p>
<p>University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill +2</p>
<p>Wake Forest University 0</p>
<p>30 University of Southern California 0</p>
<p>31 William & Mary Univeristy 0</p>
<p>Lehigh University +6</p>
<p>University of California/San Diego +4</p>
<p>34 University of Wisconsin/Madison -2</p>
<p>Brandeis University -2</p>
<p>University of Rochester +3</p>
<p>37 Case Western Reserve University -2</p>
<p>Georgia Institute of Technology +4</p>
<p>New York University -5</p>
<p>40 Boston College -3</p>
<p>University of California/Irvine +3</p>
<p>42 University of Illinois/Urbana Champaign -5</p>
<p>43 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute +3</p>
<p>Tulane Universty 0</p>
<p>45 University of California/Santa Barbara 0</p>
<p>Washington University +1</p>
<p>Yeshiva University +1</p>
<p>48 Pennsylvania State University/University Park +2</p>
<p>University of California/Davis -6</p>
<p>50 Syracuse University +2</p>
<p>University of Florida 0</p>
<p>There is no universal "best" college. At the time, I went there MIT, was the best college for me. A good friend of mine went to Western Michigan (the "best" for her) and is no worse off for it. Could she have gone to MIT? Yes. Would it have fit her? No.</p>
<p>MIT wasn't the best for me because of its ranking at the time. It was the best because I finally found a place where goofy, nerdy people like me could explore their passion for science/technology. MIT challenged me both in and out of the classroom everyday and gave me a group of friends I cherish. A ranking in a magazine can't express that.</p>
<p>Well, of course mental health is a huge concern on campus. But it's also a concern at MIT's peer schools. I suppose it's probably true that MIT students are more stressed on average than their counterparts at other elite schools, and failure is certainly a larger part of the MIT experience than it is somewhere with massive grade inflation. But "psychological problems" to me falls more under the category of serious mental health interventions.</p>
<p>I didn't mean to sound snippy, sorry. It's just that when most people start talking about mental health at MIT, they fully mean it in the "MIT students are crazy" way.</p>
<p>vtardif, I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the choir there.</p>
<p>As for those rankings - MIT behind Duke is a travesty, and I'd say that MIT tied with Caltech is a travesty - like they are just grouping the two schools together as an afterthought. I bet the people who write this stuff were history majors and are just sitting there thinking "oh yeah and there's a couple of engineering schools too, ick, minnesota institute of technology or something. they have good numbers too, well I guess we'll just throw them in there after the real schools."</p>
<p>Regarding MIT students having more psychological problems than average, molliebatmit said:
[quote]
You're mistaken. Consider yourself corrected.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's a little fast, too, Mollie. I only respond because I was reading a book recently that eviscerated Harvard for its troubles with mental health services, and the only worse example they cited was MIT. I checked the available data, and encourage you to look [url="<a href="http://www.jhu.edu/%7Enewslett/02-8-01/News/9.html%22%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/02-8-01/News/9.html"]here[/url</a>], or [url="<a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HJE/is_2_2/ai_79961273%22%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HJE/is_2_2/ai_79961273"]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>
[quote]
On a scale of deaths per 100,000 since 1990, MIT was at the top with 10.2, compared to Harvard in second place at 7.4 and Johns Hopkins next a 6.9, the Globe reported Monday... MIT students were more likely to kill themselves during the 1990s, compared to students at 11 other universities with science and engineering programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hasten to point out that some other top schools, like Stanford and Cornell, did not provide data; so claims that MIT has the most suicides certainly are not watertight. But being the worst in a sample of 11 similar schools (including the hypercompetitive JHU and the less-than-healthy Harvard) probably suggests a problem exists at an above-average level.</p>
<p>MIT has also, at least historically, not been the best at providing its students with services to cope with the problem:
[quote]
Counseling cases have risen by 60 percent since 1995, while the staff has not expanded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, I still think MIT is a wonderful place and I doubt that anybody else, given similar initial conditions, could do much better. But that doesn't change the facts, so to say that MIT doesn't have an above-average mental health problem is probably a little cavalier.</p>
<p>Best,
Ben</p>
<p>mollie, I suspect when people talk about mental health/"psychological problems" at MIT, what they're really doing is alluding to their concerns about depression and suicide, without saying so outright. With a couple highly-publicized cases a few years ago, it is still a topic fresh in people's minds. (Personally, I was reassured by the folks who spoke at CPW and do not have this as a parental concern.)</p>
<p>River Phoenix said
[quote]
I'd say that MIT tied with Caltech is a travesty
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm... well, I think rankings are nonsense just like everyone else. But I think that statement is kind of arrogant, too.</p>
<p>I'm sure you could list, better than I, the aspects that are stronger at MIT than at Caltech -- more serious humanities programs, more well-rounded activities, a larger number of students and professors, and a more comprehensive engineering program.</p>
<p>But to say that MIT is just definitely better in some absolute way is nonsense. Caltech's 3:1 student:faculty ratio is more than twice as good as MIT's. The endowment per undergrad (or per any kind of student, in fact) is much higher, which means more resources are available to each student -- hence more generous financial aid. A much higher fraction of Caltech students do undergraduate research, with stipends that are higher than MIT's for comparable work. The tight-knit community of undergrads is not replicated at any peer school. The rigor of the core curriculum is also unmatched. For what it's worth, our ranges on standardized test scores are always higher than MIT's ranges. (I think this is stupid trivia, but we should be fair, since this is a large part of what propels Caltech and MIT into the top 10 in the first place -- their "selectivity rank".) The onlyrigorous</a> economic revealed-preference study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows Caltech and MIT tied based on student preferences. </p>
<p>Now, look, I have no bone to pick with you. I really like Caltech and I really like MIT, and I'll be applying to the latter for grad school, among other places. Just please don't pretend that MIT is definitely superior. The schools are quite different -- each is "better" than the other in some very important respects, so a tie is certainly a reasonable result.</p>
<p>The travesty, as I explained, was not that either school should be ahead, but that they decided to simply lump them together with a tied rank, which gives me the feeling that they consider MIT and Caltech to just be 'those tech schools'.</p>
<p>Quoting myself:
"I'd say that MIT tied with Caltech is a travesty - like they are just grouping the two schools together as an afterthought. I bet the people who write this stuff were history majors and are just sitting there thinking "oh yeah and there's a couple of engineering schools too, ick, minnesota institute of technology or something. they have good numbers too, well I guess we'll just throw them in there after the real schools."</p>
<p>Of course, I think MIT should be at the top.
I would say:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Yale</li>
</ol>
<p>Why do you blindly discard Princeton from that list River? I'm sure they can more than hold their own against the likes of MYH.</p>
<p>I think that Princeton intentionally engineers their policy to do well in these rankings, but that the caliber of students who go there are less competant on average. I also believe that one strategy they use is to intentionally reject some of the best candidates in favor of accepting "2nd-tier candidates", who are more likely to accept the admissions offer. All the people I've met from Princeton, so far, aren't up to MIT standards. In many cases, the same goes from Harvard - but their prestige can't be beat. I say MIT is it for math/engineering/science, and Yale is it for the Humanities or Political Science.</p>
<p>Geez, you love to rehash false sentiments pheonix. that claim has no founding, as princeton students in recent years are no less "competant" than their counterparts at MIT or elsewhere. That was an old admissions tactic, yet you keep dissmenating false information. enjoy your ignorant bliss.</p>
<p>Oh, that's the other thing that I was going to say... if you look at <a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls</a>, there have been few years where that "lumping" has occurred. While the weighting of factors is arbitrary, it's silly to suppose they tweak it because they think Caltech and MIT should be "lumped in together as an afterthought". After all, they ranked Caltech #1 and MIT #3 in 2000, having previously put Caltech at #9 and MIT at #4. I'm pretty sure Caltech and MIT are ranked the same this year because their absurd little statistical game gave them the same rounded final score.</p>
<p>I think Stanford and Caltech more than hold their own against MIT in the sciences and engineering. Don't be so arrogant.</p>
<p>It's within my rights to be arrogant. Don't be so presumptuous.
My opinions are based on the dozens of people I know from each school, and my own ability to judge the worth of said people. Besides, this is an MIT board. If I am promoting MIT, I don't feel the need to be lambasted.</p>
<p>I have my reasons for saying MIT, Harvard, Yale = #1. It's my opinion. Others may hold a different opinion, but in my view, they are WRONG. This is the definition of 'opinion'. Live with it.</p>
<p>Oh ok alright. I didn't know you owned the MIT board. Just to let you know, however, more people on average choose Caltech over MIT when admitted to both. Check the Revealed Preference Ranking by NBER. In fact, I'll give you the link.</p>
<p>According to cross admit battles and the choices of the top students admitted to the top schools, the list goes like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Wellesley</li>
<li>U Penn</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>So maybe Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Caltech are #1. This time, however, it's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of a statistical sample of 4000 top college admits who felt so strongly about their opinions that each were willing to invest not only their future, but also $160,000 of cold earned cash in it. Now THAT'S the definition of "opinion." Live with it.</p>
<p>cornell, i hear, has a suicide rate that puts ours to shame. they just don't get the press. or provide the stats, it seems.</p>
<p>has the counselling staff really not expanded since '95? i thought i'd heard they'd done something about it, after the shin case.</p>
<p>as for the ratings, feel free to raise your hand if you actually took these seriously when deciding where to apply, or find them illuminating now that you're in college......right then.</p>
<p>You Caltech/Stanford people seem to have these arguments premade as to the valor of your schools, which you have been looking for an opportunity to use! When you realized that everybody here agrees that the top 25 rankings are useless, apparently it became necessary to reinterpret my posts as you saw fit so that you could pull out your flamebait. Well flame away, I've coated myself in asbestos.</p>
<p>My first post consisted of suggesting that the top 25 rankings are a travesty. And yes, I am perfectly aware of the flaws in my arguments that MIT/Caltech are lumped together because they are 'tech schools'. My second post consisted of patiently explaining to the trolls how I never said nor did I mean to imply that MIT was better than Caltech. As an afterthought I gave what I would call my own top3, which I was clearly not claiming to be definitive. My 3rd post consisted of replying directly to a simple question as to why I chose to omit Princeton, and I responded to this question honestly, whether or not you choose to believe that I was politically correct. I also explicitly admitted that my opinions were only a matter of personal experience. </p>
<p>...bunch of self-righteous treehugging hippies..</p>
<p>River Phoenix, I don't think this is a case of some history majors just pulling together numbers out of thin air. Their data is very real; it's just meaningless.</p>
<p>If you look at the criteria (and the weights) they use for ranking schools, very little of it will differ between top schools. MIT, Harvard, CalTech, etc aren't going to differ much on peer assessment, acceptance rate, etc. Where they will differ is in alumni giving (endowment), funding per student, etc. Therefore, the rankings will come down to those things.</p>
<p>The great thing about generating a list based on endowment, etc is that it will fluctuate from year to year. Viola, you get a new ranking system every year and can sell more magazines. If you did it on something more useful like peer assessment only, my guess is that you would end up with lots of ties for #1 and little fluctuation from year to year. Not a good way to sell magazines.</p>
<p>As far as the MIT vs CalTech battle, as an MIT alum, I am predisposed to hating CalTech. =) But, if you look at it with an unbiased eye, these are both good schools. If you are trying to decide between them, you obviously don't need to worry about the quality of the education. Instead, I would choose the one that fits your personality and passion more. I am an engineer, so MIT makes sense. As much as it pains me to say, if I were more focused on pure science, I would give CalTech the nod in many of them (physics, chemistry, etc.)</p>
<p>While its fun to pick on that other technical school out on the west coast, at the end of the day, it really comes down to which matches the student better.</p>
<p>Re: suicide rates etc. I do know that MIT has a rate of 10.2 per 10,000, and I do think it's terrible and deserving of a great deal of MIT's collective attention.</p>
<p>That said. There are a few things most popularizers of suicide rates tend to forget, and most of them are epidemiological. People who successfully commit suicide are significantly more likely to be young and male. In the 1990s, the average MIT student was both those things; since then, the population has famously evened out. </p>
<p>I have also seen statements claiming that engineering students (regardless of institution) are more likely to commit suicide than their non-engineering peers, but I haven't yet found the study to which the sources refer. If it's true, though, that implies that young male engineering majors tend to commit suicide at a higher rate than the average person, and therefore it wouldn't be surprising if MIT did have a higher suicide rate than the general population.</p>
<p>From this</a> site:
[quote]
In fact, MIT's suicide rate is below the national average if one adjusts figures for the school's overwhelmingly male student body (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 2002).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And from here:</a>
[quote]
Because of small number statistics, the "true" suicide rate -- i.e., that that would be measured by an very large MIT in the limit of an infinite number of students -- is, to 95% confidence, approximately 100,000<em>(11 +/- 2</em>sqrt(11)/48,000). At this level, MIT's suicide rate is consistent with the national average. However, at 65% confidence, it is higher than the national average. It would take approximately another thirty three years in order to obtain a measurement of the MIT suicide rate that could be distinguished from the national average at 95% confidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From this</a> site
[quote]
Based on 10 undergraduate suicides over 11 years, the article concludes that suicide is a greater danger at MIT than elsewhere. When one factors in that science and business students have considerably higher suicide rates than liberal arts students, and that male college students kill themselves five times more often than female college students, the figures quoted prove nothing. MIT is cited as currently being composed of 59 percent male students; that fact alone would make the suicide rate differences with most other colleges understandable; but in the early 1990s an even higher percentage of the students at MIT were male.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe it's that I'm a scientist, but it drives me up the wall when people look at absolute numbers and averages without giving a thought to lack of statistical significance.</p>