Most overrated/underrated school on the USNWR?

College Search & Selection
141

<p>"Finally, how many great Broadway stars does JHU or NU turn out?"</p>

<p>NORTHWESTERN?? Are you kidding? There are few drama/theater departments in the country that are better. Turn on the television any night and practically every show has an NU connection. Sorry, with all due respect to Carnegie-Mellon, no comparison!</p>

142

<p>arbiter/pizza: Sorry I got mixed up with lumping NU in with the theatre argument. I agree with you guys on that point.</p>

143

<p>Tufts, Rice, Georgetown, Wake Forest, Brown, William & Mary are forever underrated.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
From Bescraze: 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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>@@ So the journalism major should be indifferent between NU and WUSTL? The music major? The theater major? The art major? While both are fine schools, if there were a hypothetical student who had been admitted to both, I would counsel very differently for a student interested in journalism, music or theater (NU) than I would a student interested in art (WUSTL). Of course it makes a difference, Bescraze.</p>

145

<p>Gradatgrad ... please don't be for Northwestern what evil-asian-dictator, another poster on these boards, has been for Duke. Lots of schools have lots to offer. There is really no need to gratuitously put down U of Chicago students, when the two institutions themselves have plenty of mutual respect for one another, and there is really no need to put down WUSTL. It speaks of insecurity to have to put these other schools down. And no one who attends / attended NU need be insecure, at all.</p>

146

<p>I don't think gradatgrad attends NU. At least I haven't seen him saying that. I agree with you that the three schools (as well as CMU/Brown..etc) are all peers.</p>

147

<p>This is why I think so, Sam Lee:</p>

<p>Gradatgrad discussing what dorms he signed up for <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/northwestern-university/199140-what-halls-did-you-sign-up.html#post2530241%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/northwestern-university/199140-what-halls-did-you-sign-up.html#post2530241&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And saying that he's an incoming frosh on the NU forum <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/northwestern-university/200167-urgent-dorm-questions.html#post2524595%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/northwestern-university/200167-urgent-dorm-questions.html#post2524595&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Plus he said he attended one of the two best midwestern colleges, and it's pretty evident he doesn't mean U Chicago or WUSTL :-).</p>

148

<p>What is it that makes people think Georgetown is underrated?</p>

149

<p>Do we really need this discussion? NU and JHU especially dominates CMU in almost every field there is outside of engineering, NU probably has CMU beat in economics and business.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Cognitive Science; JHU#4, CMU #2 Chronicle</a> Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index
Electrical Engineering; JHU#8, CMU#4 Chronicle</a> Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index
History; JHU #6, CMU #4 Chronicle</a> Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index</p>

<p>CMU beats JHU in Business #2, Civil Engineering #9, Computer Engineering #8, Operations Research #2, Architecture #7, Communication Studies #4, Philosophy #5, Applied Math #5, Computational Sciences #4, Computer Science #4, Information Science #3, Statistics #6, Public Policy #9 (Basically everything in engineering)</p>

<p>JHU beats CMU in Biochemistry #7, Cell Biology #1, Epidemiology #2, Immunology #10, Molecular Biology #6, Neuroscience #8, Pathology #6, Pharmacology #3, Biomedical Engineering #1, Electrical Engineering #8, Human Development #4, Environmental Health Sciences #4, Nursing #4, Public Health #1, Classics and Classical Language #8, European Studies #3, French language #5, Italian Language #4, Genetics #4, Spanish Language #4, Astronomy #8, Biostatistics #2, Chemical Sciences #5, Health Professions #1, Physics #2, International Affairs and Development #2, Creative Writing #2, Art History #1, East Asian Langues #5, English #5, Near and Middle Eastern Studies #6, Economics #4, Geography #6, Sociology #8, Egyptology, Assyriology, Ancient History....Our Peabody Music Conservatory and Premed are both highly rank and dominates you as well...</p>

<p>(Basically everything else in humanities and sciences)</p>

<p>If anything, given the strength of CMU's program, they are a powerhouse in those sorta things. TO CLAIM that JHU is only good for premed and NU is only good for journalism....thats just ludicrious, You don't have any idea of the sheer volume of top programs JHU and NU has... Those were only a sampling of those that I gave out to show you JHU is not only just for premed.</p>

150

<p>
[quote]
So the journalism major should be indifferent between NU and WUSTL? The music major? The theater major? The art major? While both are fine schools, if there were a hypothetical student who had been admitted to both, I would counsel very differently for a student interested in journalism, music or theater (NU) than I would a student interested in art (WUSTL). Of course it makes a difference, Bescraze.

[/quote]

You are misinterpreting what I said, but let me make it clear. If you want to do a specialty career, such as being an engineer, a scientist, a musician or an artist, it can matter. I fully agree. Yet, if you are interested in a profession, medicine, law, buisness(more populated choices) than it does not matter what you major in. I know someone who majored in French Lit and went to Stanford Business school, someone who majored in British History and went to Stanford Law School, someone who majored in political science and went to Goldman Sachs out of undergrad, someone who majored in European History and went to Medical School straight after....for this professions it is undoubtedly different (with Med school being less so than the others). In things like this, you are pursuing a broad liberal arts education from your curriculum requirements and than a particular specialty (major) that you are interested in. I firmly believe in these cases the department rankings mean very little at any top 25 school, since the education will still be great. Would I like it if my economics professor is a Nobel laureate, sure, but will it make a gigantic difference in what I learn, probably not. So for most people who apply to the School of Arts and Sciences at a school, the department rankings will not affect their experience much or their future employment, the prestige of the school as well as the strength of the student body will have more of an impact.</p>

151

<p>Phead128:</p>

<p>While I agree with you that CMU isn't better than JHU, even on departmental basis, citing the faculty productivity index really doesn't prove a whole lot other than just that--faculty productivity. Like many other rankings, it's very flawed. For example, it often doesn't account for differences in size, doesn't always accurately measure impact (in its citations), and has many arbitrary rules (why only Fulbrights between 2002 and 2006? Why Nobel Laureates for the past 50 years? Why 60% for books? Why give them 5x the weight as journal articles in humanities, but a different factor in other broad fields?). That it doesn't necessarily correlate with program quality is obvious: for example, in linguistics, UNC comes in at #3; anyone who knows anything about linguistics knows UNC isn't even on the map when it comes to top departments. U Arizona at #2? UMD-CP in the top 10, when even its own students find the program to be mediocre at best? Where's Berkeley? Where's UCLA? They are powerhouses in linguistics.</p>

<p>You can see this in many other disciplines, too. Rice #1 for CS? UCSD, UCD, and UCI in the top 5 for math--no Harvard, MIT, U Chicago, etc. to be seen?</p>

<p>So it might give you a general idea of the productivity of the faculty, but really, it doesn't correlate completely (or much at all) with quality of programs.</p>

152

<p>


</p>

<p>"The productivity of each faculty member is measured, although the data are aggregated before being published. Faculty members can be judged on as many as five factors, depending on the most important variables in the given discipline: books published; journal publications; citations of journal articles; federal-grant dollars awarded; and honors and awards".</p>

<p>It has a category which states specifically the "Number of faculty". Adjusting for faculty size is irrelevant since this study goes even more indepth and analyzes the faculty productivity rating of each member of the department.</p>

<p>Its primary aim was never to measure "impact" of citations. Remember, this study primarily relies on **quantitative **measures in the program review process. "impact" in citations is a very intangible factor. Many other rankings have tried to pursue this as well based on volume of the Web contents and the visibility web-presence and impact such as Webometrics which I believe is highly flawed since Impact cannot be quantified and objectified (if there is even such a word) on a 1-10 scale. Plus, this study doesn't claim to do impact studies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
why only Fulbrights between 2002 and 2006?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Awards considered more prestigious are given more weight than others. For example, most awards, like Fulbrights, are counted only if they were awarded between 2002 and 2006. But a Nobel Prize can be counted in the 2006-07 index if it was awarded within the past 50 years."</p>

<p>Ugh, When did Chronicle ever claim to only count Fulbright awards? Prestigious awards such as the Fulbright award are given more weight than other awards that are not in its class. </p>

<p>As to why only 2002-2006 period, Ask Chronicle, I assume this is probably the most relevant period since it is the most recent awards that were won within a reasonable time frame (for example, Nobel Prize winners were allowed a time extension going back some fifty years since very few ppl win the Nobel prize at a particular institution that often and frequently anyways)</p>

<p>Plus, Chronicle is focused on primarily faculty productivity on ppl in the most recent terms (so it can reissue new rankings every yr. and have them changes since you be productive in one yr. and drop off the next), and also Fulbright winners may not be on payroll on the faculty list if you extend it way before 2002. I don't know, its not like going back 11 yrs to see data that long ago is going to be helpful to know how productive faculty members are TODAY. That is why a time limit is reached and is adjusted according to how often they are awarded and given out and how long ago they want to collect data from is just so that they would have the most recent producitivty figures in the most recent years, not going back 50 yrs ago, that is irrelevant data especially for universities who want to know TODAY what they are doing.</p>

153

<p>Pheads: I never said JHU was only good for premed, but rather listing its greatest strength just like CMU is not only good for SCS but also in many other fields. However, listing a bunch of concentrations within humanities is not very compelling since I have already admitted to CMU's weakness in the humanities. </p>

<p>In areas of business and economics, the links I've provided should show you that CMU is at the least an equal and even higher regarded. The Tepper School of Business for example has a 12-13% acceptance rate with many 800 Maths and an average 3-4% rank. Furthermore, its postgrad salaries are tied with those of Stern/Wharton/Ross etc. at 60k median and the median companies/top recruiting companies include top Wall St. companies as well as T5 Consulting Companies.</p>

<p>CMU also has 6 nobel laureautes in Economics and the resulting salaries for that major are also higher/on par with JHU/NU.</p>

<p>Your posts moreso prove my point in that these 3 schools are not collectively better than any of the others but rather they all belong in the same "tier" and are therefore equal. CMU is complicated in comparisons as it is basically an advanced trade school. Its top programs and specialities can compete with the best of the best while offering top career opportunities and making sure its students are marketable. That means a lot of liberal artsy fields are cut short in favor of these "marketable" degrees like SCS/business/engineering/etc.</p>

<p>Therefore, any generalized statements that one school is better than the other is quite erroneous. Caltech would also probably lose in most humanities battles with JHU but is ranked considerably higher (not that I agree that it should). Many kids do choose SCS/Tepper/CIT over JHU/NU and likewise, many students choose JHU/NU over CMU as a whole. With CMU's trade school operations and its 7 vastly different colleges of varying difficulty and selectivity, it is almost impossible to compare the university as a whole to more traditional universities. Rather, the colleges themselves should be compared to other programs and consequently this is why I state that it is impossible to generalize.</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
Its one dimension of analyzing program quality. It benchmarks individual programs performance against national standards and allows you to compare your university and programs to peers across the country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, it only gives us a part of the equation. You can't just say, "X school has top-10 faculty productivities in XYZ departments, so XYZ are top-10 overall," when that isn't necessarily true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Adjusting for faculty size is irrelevant since this study goes even more indepth and analyzes the faculty productivity rating of each member of the department.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what about the parts where it just doesn't list any data? Where there are no %s?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Plus, this study doesn't claim to do impact studies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It tries to measure that in citations. Why else would they have them?</p>

<p>And if it isn't striving to include impact, then it's even more flawed. Who cares how much is produced, if none of it really matters (in other words, has an impact)?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ugh, When did Chronicle ever claim to only count Fulbright awards? Prestigious awards such as the Fulbright award are given more weight than other awards that are not in its class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, why are they including the Fulbrights from 2002 to 2006 only? But for Nobel prizes, they go back 50 years? That's arbitrary. It leads to error.</p>

<p>
[quote]
going back some fifty years since very few ppl win the Nobel prize at a particular institution that often and frequently anyways

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fulbrights aren't that common, either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and also Fulbright winners may not be on payroll on the faculty list if you extend it way before 2002.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The same logic can be applied to the Nobel Laureates...</p>

<p>
[quote]
its not like going back 11 yrs to see data that long ago is going to be helpful to know how productive faculty members are TODAY.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're right. That 11-year-old data isn't telling you how productive faculty members are; it's telling you the overall quality of the department.</p>

<p>You're floundering for an answer to these obviously arbitrary decisions in their rankings. If you want to prove that JHU is on par or better than CMU and such, go for actual rankings of the overall department (NRC, US News, Gourman, THES, etc.). Otherwise, it's like me saying "X school has this many facilities in all these disciplines, and that's more than those at Y school! So X school's is stronger in these disciplines"--you have to look at more than one dimension of the department.</p>

155

<p>
[quote]
But again, it only gives us a part of the equation. You can't just say, "X school has top-10 faculty productivities in XYZ departments, so XYZ are top-10 overall," when that isn't necessarily true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thats exactly what I said. What are you trying to do, reiterate my point again and spin it as if its not a worthy sources to apply when benchmarking program to program like you would do in USNews?</p>

<p>I never made that distorted claim. I NEVER SAID "X school has top-10 faculty productivities in XYZ departments, so XYZ are top-10 overall," massive retard. Thats just going to the extra mile by stating...hmmm....one dimension must correlate to the other million different dimensions that constitute program quality. I do not believe in that, I believe its one of many critical dimensions of analyzing program quality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And what about the parts where it just doesn't list any data? Where there are no %s?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"If one or more variables are not used in the calculation of faculty productivity, that part of the equation is removed and the point scale reduced accordingly. So if honors are not included, the total possible score is reduced to 90 from 100. Institutions that pay for the data have the ability to reweight the variables in any category, according to their preferences. Starting with FSP 2006-07, subscribers to Academic Analytics will also have the option to obtain the complete dataset for disciplines of interest to them, so they can use the raw data as they please."</p>

<p>
[quote]
It tries to measure that in citations. Why else would they have them?</p>

<p>And if it isn't striving to include impact, then it's even more flawed. Who cares how much is produced, if none of it really matters (in other words, has an impact)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The quantity measure of how many citations they have is not to measure impact. Impact is extraordinarily different than how many times a research is cited for their work. My defintiion of impact is how far it exhorts change, change is variable and may be viewed differently from person to person. These are quantitative measures not qualititative measures. You might need a system such as a PA score which measures the amount of influence (yeah, you can be productive, amass huge volumes of publications and have a small percentage of them cited and have those constitute a large portion of this ranking, but how insightful and how valueable/influential are these citations? that is something totally different this survey aims to measure. It says it on the website itself, its relies on strict quantitative measures in the program review process. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, why are they including the Fulbrights from 2002 to 2006 only? But for Nobel prizes, they go back 50 years? That's arbitrary. It leads to error.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um, yeah I've explained and I'll explain again, Ppl in this business know that nobel prize winners don't come as often as fulbright winners. A single school can have a huge pack of fulbright winners one year, may not see a single nobel prize winner in 10-15 years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fulbrights aren't that common, either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>vs.Nobel prize winners? How often are ground breaking studies that reveal the fundamentals of a system we have never learned before? Nobel prizes are given out for really fundamental work that has significant value that can change a perspective of how we look at the world. Fulbrights on the otherhand are grants for international educational exchange for really smart ppl.</p>

<p>Are you saying that you are smarter than the ppl who created this survey/rank. I wouldn't want to dispute the ranking methology and dare claim it flawed when they have ppl are are professors and have pHds workin on this type of stuff.</p>

<p>This is certaintly more scientific than the arbitrary weighting system USNWR, has in place, since this is purely objective whereas USNWR has a subjective component to it, easily gamed.</p>

156

<p>


First of all, I'm not sure where the salary list is on that link. And I can't imagine CMU publishing other schools' starting salaries on its site, so even if you can find the CMU salaries, what are you comparing them to?.


Buahahahhahahaha. Your true ignorance shines through. CMU's theatre school is barely even comparable to Northwestern's.

LOL</p>

<p>

You asked why US News doesn't rank the schools in tiers. I told you why. It's because that wouldn't sell magazines.</p>

157

<p>kyledavid80, THANK YOU for reminding us of the necessesity of department rankings.</p>

158

<p>


I do not want to be that evil asian. </p>

<p>But I will defend truth and call it like I see it. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead...</p>

159

<p>And GD, this page is a huge waste of everyone's time. Like 1000 words on faculty productivity rankings isn't really getting us anywhere.</p>

160

<p>i am too lazy to read all previous but can somehow explain to me how university of virginia out ranks ucla?</p>