<p>
I beg you, stop being so na</p>
<p>In defense of my sister's alma mater, and for my love of playing devil's advocate: Washington Universities Art School is top notch, whereas NU's Art Theory and Practice Program is... not.</p>
<p>
To me, CMU's ranking seems roughly correct, all things considered.</p>
<p>"To me, CMU's ranking seems roughly correct, all things considered."</p>
<p>I wouldn't say so, with a school that is top 1, 5, or 10 in engineering, business, computer science, drama/fine arts, design, architecture, creative writing, cognitive psychology, musical theatre, etc. Seems more like a top 15 or top 20 school at the least, though humanities suffers. However, that is not much different from schools like Caltech that also specialize. </p>
<p>CMU also provides sterling job networking and its undergrads are highly desired by recruiters who praise the students' teamworking, leadership, and analytical skills. CMU consistently leads in its postgrad salaries for engineering/business/cs that are on par or above those of the Ivies(and other top 5/top10 national universities) while producing some of the best theatre/drama/voice alums and also maintaining a 85% acceptance rate to med school.</p>
<p>The time-honored question, then: what schools that are above CMU would you place below it? I can't really find any...</p>
<p>Notre Dame, WUSTL, Vanderbilt, Emory should all be below the likes of Berkeley/CMU/Georgetown IMO.</p>
<p>However to be honest, its not really a matter of above or below. Why can't schools be tied, in tier settings, such as Northwestern/CMU/JHU/etc. all in one tier or ranking?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sam, the problem with your rationale is that it differs from how the rankings are implemented. You say that admissions practices and educational quality are separate. While this is true, in USNWR, they are not. Their admissions practices contribute to an increase in their ranking. They are clearly doing what they do to increase their rankings, which means they are not as good as their ranking indicates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, suppose that their admissions practice did make a difference and they change it and their ranking drops as a result, then they would be underrated IMO. That is, they were underrated 10-15 years ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I endeavor you to name a single department, save medicine and its accoutrements, in which Wash U is discernably superior to Northwestern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not know department rankings, you could ask me name the ones of Harvard that are better than NU and I wouldn't know. Since I am pretty sure their academics are all very strong, I think discoussion about department rankings making a school superior to another is rediculous. I have said this many times, for grad school it matters, but for undergrad people take a broad liberal arts education (for the most part obviously) and when they do decide to major in something, they are learning the exact same material as if they were in NU or WUSTL. I mean for almost all of these kids what they major in has no bearing on their future employment, so department rankings are "nice", but not really that important. Do you really think going to a school ranked number 1 in history and the other ranked number 11 will appreciably change anything about your experience. No, the quality of the student body, the financial and faculty resources of the institution can and by these measures they are peers (WUSTL has a stronger student body fyi)</p>
<p>I think people who are spending a lot of time arguing about whether a school is "rated" correctly are missing the big picture.</p>
<p>Yes, a lot of schools are liberally massaging the data that they report. Yes, it's unfair, and yes, it's a little shady. Schools may choose to report the stats of admitted students rather than attending students (for almost every school, the stats of admitted students are much, much better than those of attending students). Schools can also find ways to measure student/faculty ratios, using non-teaching faculty, or can "drop" alumni with whom they've "lost contact" as part of the alumni giving rate.</p>
<p>The only schools who are clean, IMO, are schools that refuse to participate in the US News rankings. It's possible that Reed and Sarah Lawrence massage other data that they provide, but it's harder to find and you don't see many people quibbling about it.</p>
<p>So, what's my point? Most schools are only as good as you make them to be. Instead of worrying about admissions percentages, average SAT scores, etc., why aren't we worrying more about what the school can offer the individual student interested in it? Am I the only person here who thinks that "X IS BETTER THAN Y NANANANA POO POO" is just ridiculous-- and unfounded? Couldn't somebody else come along and say"Y IS BETTER THAN X NANANANA POO POO?"</p>
<p>FWIW, I checked out the gradatgrad, the OP's, posting history. In another life, it looks like OP was a bit of a troll. OP could have reformed his/her ways..... or perhaps is just around to stir up trouble and waste everybody's time:</p>
<p>Hmmm, perhaps the U of C is overrated because everybody here is really ugly. Thanks. I like being called ugly, and calling the students at another school ugly is a helpful, informative way for prospective students to find the right college for themselves.</p>
<p>And, lesbians are just a RIOT. LOL. SO FUNNY. </p>
<p>I would take gradatgrad with an enormous grain of salt, for future reference. There are too many kind and well-meaning people on these message boards who would find their time better spent on other threads.</p>
<p>
<p>However to be honest, its not really a matter of above or below. Why can't schools be tied, in tier settings, such as Northwestern/CMU/JHU/etc. all in one tier or ranking?
First, because CMU is not on par with JHU or NU.</p>
<p>And second, because US News wouldn't sell any issues if they did that :p</p>
<p>
<p>I do not know department rankings, you could ask me name the ones of Harvard that are better than NU and I wouldn't know. Since I am pretty sure their academics are all very strong, I think discoussion about department rankings making a school superior to another is rediculous. I have said this many times, for grad school it matters, but for undergrad people take a broad liberal arts education (for the most part obviously) and when they do decide to major in something, they are learning the exact same material as if they were in NU or WUSTL. I mean for almost all of these kids what they major in has no bearing on their future employment, so department rankings are "nice", but not really that important. Do you really think going to a school ranked number 1 in history and the other ranked number 11 will appreciably change anything about your experience. No, the quality of the student body, the financial and faculty resources of the institution can and by these measures they are peers (WUSTL has a stronger student body fyi)
I think going to the #1 journalism school in the country can change a career. I think going to the best non-conservatory music school in the country can chage a career. </p>
<p>And yes, I do think a number one ranked school likely delivers more quality in education than #11. It can attract better professors, for one thing.</p>
<p>I think a better ranking of the schools is by national counselors</p>
<p>
<p>Relationships</p>
<p>Hmmm, perhaps the U of C is overrated because everybody here is really ugly. Thanks. I like being called ugly, and calling the students at another school ugly is a helpful, informative way for prospective students to find the right college for themselves.</p>
<p>And, lesbians are just a RIOT. LOL. SO FUNNY. </p>
<p>GRADE ME! (please</p>
<p>I would take gradatgrad with an enormous grain of salt, for future reference. There are too many kind and well-meaning people on these message boards who would find their time better spent on other threads.
I just don't see what's so wrong with making a couple jokes in obvious sarcasm. I guess lightheartedness isn't the strong suit of you Maroons. </p>
<p>But thanks for the ad hominem attacks. Maybe you should go make [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/557127-university-chicago-democrat.html%5Danother%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/557127-university-chicago-democrat.html]another[/url</a>] [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/522615-obama-university-chicago-democrat.html%5Dthread%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/522615-obama-university-chicago-democrat.html]thread[/url</a>] about how Barack Obama is a "U of C Democrat" or spend some time tending to your sick [url=<a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=757022%5Dmyspace%5B/url">http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=757022]myspace[/url</a>]. :p</p>
<p>LOL. This thread is full of inmature college students debating on useless USNWR college rankings. Go out there and get a REAL life experience.</p>
<p>I graduated from San Jose State University (yeah unranked CA State U) in 1989 with MSEE and retired 2000 @ age 38. Wonder how many of you can do that with your top 50 ranked diplomas. LOL.</p>
<p>Probably none of us, because we won't be in position to ride a bubble until it bursts like you presumably did :(</p>
<p>EDIT: and I think you meant "immature"***</p>
<p>"First, because CMU is not on par with JHU or NU."</p>
<p>You're right, the postgrad salary surveys for CMU is higher than both these schools in many fields (engineering/business/econ) and is also better at many fields other than journalism for NU and Premed for JHU. Thank you for correcting me.</p>
<p>Where did you get data that is sorted by both school and major? Link please?</p>
<p>Of course CMU will have higher starting salaries overall than JHU or NU because it graduates a higher percentage of engineers.</p>
<p>Gladly, Information</a> for Students and Alumni - Career Center - Student Affairs</p>
<p>and false, the survey seperates it by major as you can see. Tepper/Econ also produce high salaries (even higher than some engineering) and CMU's premed is at 85% Frequently</a> Asked Questions :: Carnegie Mellon Admission Council.</p>
<p>Finally, how many great Broadway stars does JHU or NU turn out? What about archies or designers? CMU excels in many areas including fine arts that JHU/NU are either lower tier or don't even have departments in.</p>
<p>Does being better in one area define a school as a whole? Would you stand by your previous erroneous statement to a student looking into computer science or quant analysis? I can guarantee you CMU is better at both. </p>
<p>A school with top programs in many fields is definitely on par with those in the Top 20 and no, US news would not sell as many magazines by doing tier rankings but this thread isn't "Ways for Us News to maximize profits". The thread is "Most overrated/underrated school on the USNRWR" and my points are clearly relevant to such a discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not know department rankings, you could ask me name the ones of Harvard that are better than NU and I wouldn't know. Since I am pretty sure their academics are all very strong, I think discoussion about department rankings making a school superior to another is rediculous. I have said this many times, for grad school it matters, but for undergrad people take a broad liberal arts education (for the most part obviously) and when they do decide to major in something, they are learning the exact same material as if they were in NU or WUSTL.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know you like to argue against departmental rankings, Bescraze, but I didn't know you hadn't even looked at them.</p>
<p>You don't seem to know much about curricula. People take a broad liberal arts education? Where'd you get that nonsense? I'm not taking a broad liberal arts education. Most people I know aren't. There are a few GERs, of course, but those go far beyond the liberal arts.</p>
<p>And I will say, again, that departmental rankings matter at the undergrad level. Why? First, ask yourself why they matter at the grad level. You want the faculty, the classes, the facilities, the research, the library holdings, the funds, and so on. These are strong in a top department.</p>
<p>Now, ask yourself what you would want in an undergraduate education in that subject. I don't know about you, but I want more than just classes. I want to be able to interact with top faculty, people who are unfathomably knowledgeable in their field of study, people who are leaders in that field. I know this because I've experienced it.</p>
<p>I want the top facilities too. I turned down some great schools because they just didn't have the facilities to do the kind of research I want to do.</p>
<p>I want the library holdings to have all the material I would want and need to do research, to enrich my education, and so on. Better departments = better libraries (in those departments). I have seen this as well.</p>
<p>I want the funds to do my research, to do my projects, to do fieldwork in my area of study, to do internships with faculty over the summer. This just isn't present at all top schools. I know, because I looked.</p>
<p>And I would definitely not say that all schools will be equal even in the education. This seems like a brash claim, but let me clarify. For the most part, any school can provide you with a great education. Some say the only difference between top schools' education. On the whole, this is true. On an individual basis, it isn't. For some fields, some schools will have sparse course offerings. Some won't have course offerings at all. Some will have courses, but they're known to comprise 'weak' majors (in other words, the major is considered 'fluff'). I know this because I looked at the degree offerings, course offerings, and such for my field of study.</p>
<p>I wasn't sure where to find all of the criteria I just listed. I just picked out schools that I might like at face value (good location, nice weather, good price, etc.); some had what I wanted, others didn't. So what did I do? I looked up rankings. Lo and behold, all the schools ranked at the top had precisely what I was looking for: top faculty, multiple and flexible degree programs, courses that give breadth and depth, a plethora of facilities, tons of research with faculty and student collaborations, tons of funds, and tons of opportunities, including summer and academic year internships. I knew these schools were the ones I wanted to apply to.</p>
<p>So in short, sure, the curricula (as in, what you learn) will be the same at all the top schools, in some cases like biology and English. In other cases, it'll be different. Furthermore, there's much more to an education, far beyond the liberal arts (whether your school requires it as part of its GERs or not), than the classes you take. Whether to seize those opportunities is up to you. But departmental rankings, even at the undergrad level, will show you exactly where those opportunities can be found.</p>
<p>@lfecollegeguy: You have very valid points. But when you throw in things like suggesting NU has a weak/ non existent (or at least inferior to CMU's) theater program, you just look like an ignorant fool.</p>