<p>“But I seriously doubt that the TSU grad is more educated simply because he or she was REQUIRED to take math or science classes. There are a lot of good answers as to why one may rather go to TSU than Brown, but a core curriculum is hardly one of them.”</p>
<p>Interesting answer. If a core curriculum is not that important when selecting a college, then why does it take four years to earn a degree instead of two? Why not just take away the GE’s and just focus on their majors? It will save the students time and their parents a lot of money. I thought the purpose of attending a college is to get a well-rounded education, so that the students would have the knowledge and skills to make it on their own, and to have something to fall back on in case their chosen field didn’t workout.</p>
<p>Underrated by who? It is the perennial #1 in US News and World Reports. Of course, many have not heard of it, but certainly not underrated by graduate schools and many large employers.</p>
<p>Forbes is complete crap. Any rankings system that has Dartmouth at #30 (!), Cornell at #51 (!!), UPenn at #52 (!!! <em>**??), Johns Hopkins at #101 (EVEN MORE *</em><em>??), WashU at #113 (EVEN MORE MORE </em>??) is messed up.</p>
<p>So apparently this school called Kalamazoo College (yea that’s probably the first time you’ve heard of it too) is ranked higher than JHU and WashU?? I don’t think so…</p>
<p>^^^and how do you know that Kalamazoo is not better than JHU or WashU for undergraduate education? Do you have reason to believe that Dartmouth, Cornell, or UPenn should be ranked higher than the schools ranked above them (all known as having very good undergraduate education) besides reputation alone? Remember, reputation is mostly earned through graduate programs.</p>
<p>That is a valid point regarding the ‘hidden’ emphasis on research in ranking the colleges. If it were more a matter of the quality of undergraduate teaching then I suppose that ALL colleges would be ranked together, without universities and LACs in separate categories, as they are now.</p>
<p>The rankings mostly appear to move at glacial speed (besides the constant minor fluctuations within ‘tiers’). That is how it should be, for to make dramatic and lasting improvement really requires time. Those colleges that focus on that and not worry about the annual ‘roundup’ will, eventually, see that their quality improvement has passed the test of time and is more ‘real’. That is, of course, if those who ‘rank’ are objective… hmm.</p>
<p>Because who actually cares about the quality of undergraduate teaching? Chemistry at all schools is still Chemistry. Some schools may have better professors but ultimately, it’s up to the individual to learn the subject. Despite obvious objections this response may incur, the reason most students go to top ranking schools is because they want the reputation and it is a way to “show off” to others and employers. The top ranking schools usually consists of the top 10-20 US News and World Report ranked schools because USNWR is still the most widely viewed rankings source, despite its flaws.</p>
<p>Kalamazoo may have great undergraduate education. But if I’m looking at resumes, all other things being equal, the person who graduated from JHU or WashU is going to get a look before the person from Kalamazoo. Why? That’s just my perception, and mine is the one that counts when I’m looking at resumes.</p>
<p>These rankings all boil down to: according to who?</p>
<p>Well…I’d say that in the long run the quality of teaching is indeed very important for its very ability to inspire one to gain more depth of knowledge, thus making the student ‘better’ educated than another whose professor was just so-so. College students are still impressionable despite their gesticulations to the contrary…</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt. I would like to also add that most employers would take someone who graduated from JHU/WashU over someone who graduated from Kalamazoo given that both students are about the same caliber. This is just because more people recognize the prestigious reputations of JHU/WashU and although Kalamazoo may have a better undergraduate education, it does not have a very good reputation so employers/graduate schools do not view students from Kalamazoo with the same enthusiasm as they view JHU/WashU students.</p>
<p>But this whole list is goofy–how can you begin to compare some of these schools? It’s nonsense to even begin to discuss whether West Point is “better” than Grinnell, for example. At least USNews is a little better about categorizing.</p>
<p>Maybe Kalamazoo doesn’t have a “good reputation” but unless it has a ‘bad’ one then I sense that many more employers would be willing to consider hiring one of its graduates than you are willing to concede. </p>
<p>This country is much more diverse now and open to thinking “outside the box”. A couple of generations ago, yes, certain colleges would always trump others in gaining employer preference, but this diversity thing now goes beyond people, it includes giving institutions a chance. After all, there are many new people in America and many new people in positions of authority, including hiring others. What real allegiance do most of them have to the traditional top dogs of academia?</p>
<p>It’s Forbes… they are trying to make money. And the only way to do it with college rankings is to give a comprehensive rankings of all the colleges and vary the rankings to make it a lot different than USNWR so it can attract viewers. It’s just a business and clearly, the author has an agenda (destroy public schools) and has a liberal arts preference/bias.</p>
<p>And leanid, I diasgree with your last sentence. Most white collar Americans come from the universities/colleges with a prestigious reputation. If this weren’t the case, everyone would be choosing colleges with no/small reputation (since it is most likely a lot cheaper) over more reputable schools. The student body at the top 10-20 colleges would be vacant. But in reality, this is not the case. Why? Because generally speaking, graduates from reputable schools end up getting those white collar jobs and end up being better off in life. It’s simply logic.</p>
<p>These last few posts bring up another important point–these lists are all about national reputation. That may not be all that important for many graduates. A graduate from Kalamazoo might not have that much trouble competing for jobs in Michigan, even against people from Johns Hopkins. And I would suspect that a lot of the people at Kalamazoo are from Michigan, and want to stay in Michigan as well.</p>
<p>Wow, you obviously never had to struggle through the undergraduate chemistry classes that I did at a top 20 university. I couldn’t understand the professor and I guarantee most of those students who went to an elite LAC finished with a much more comprehensive understanding of chemistry than I did. And yet, many here may feel that Georgetown deserves a higher ranking than Williams, Haverford, or Amherst based on reputation alone.</p>
<p>Georgetown isn’t top 20. It’s top 30. Top 20 consists of all the schools ranked from 1 - 20. And why would you attribute the quality of your chemistry class based on how much you struggled in it. Needless to say, your struggle was based on how badly your professor communicated with you.</p>
<p>Everyone is talking about prestige and such in bringing down Ivies and other top schools, but there is something these schools have that many other don’t and that’s a spectacular student body that urges students withing their systems to excel and live within an exceptional academic environment for four years. I was liking the list because BC was higher ranked than it is in USnews, but when I saw Washington College ahead of WashU, that was the end of any justification I was trying to make for why schools are scattered around the way they are. Academic environment, although not purely measurable, can be inferred from selectivity, SAT scores, etc, and these are the stats that should matter the most. College should be about being surrounded by exceptional minds (and bars =P), and there is no denying that Ivies provide this and much more. To say who can really judge if Cornell is better than James Madison or something like that is out of their minds, because it is possible to do so. Will you be able to actually understand your teachers at JMU? Probably. You can be an exceptional student at an okay school, but the strength of your peers is what ultimately makes or breaks a true top college.</p>
<p>HofL: Sorry about my poor ranking. Yes, I suspect that I’m just bad at chemistry But, why folks think good teaching makes a difference is beyond me.</p>
But, why folks think good teaching makes a difference is beyond me.</p>