<p>Excel table. Plus full report.</p>
<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research.html%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research.html</a></p>
<p>How do they do their rankings? This is somewhat different than USnews...</p>
<p>Another Barrons ranking that has nothing to do with undergrad...He scours the web to find things that make his top 50 school look good.</p>
<p>Slipper, How does it feel to have a Wisconsin grad running Dartmouth?</p>
<p>Heaven--all the methodology is in the full report.</p>
<p>Im surprised UMichigan was beat by ArizonaSU same UWashington.</p>
<p>Public RESEARCH Universities</p>
<p>aka, which schools let all their best professors spend their time out of the classroom.</p>
<p>Yeah...I like usnews better...</p>
<p>its not a ranking of quality of school - simply a ranking of researching prowess. Obviously schools that arn't big on research aren't going to score well. look at william and mary - obviously more respected than 90% of the schools listed above it - but just because its small it gets hammered in phd degrees conferred, research $ spent (liberal arts focus), and total endowment (low due to no research + small school).</p>
<p>Not only that, but some of the information on that table is wrong. For example UVa's endowment is over 3.2 billion, not 2.7. On this list $500 million could make a huge impact.</p>
<p>The emphasis here is totally on large schools. Look for example at UVa's private annual giving vs. texas's. Texas has 3x the undergrad population of uva for example - yet gets less than 50% more donations from its alumni...obviously people at uva donate more - yet uva is penalized because its a smaller school.</p>
<p>Im surprised UMichigan was beat by ArizonaSU same with UWashington.</p>
<p>Michigan is in the top tier group.</p>
<p>University of California - Berkeley 9 0
University of California - Los Angeles 9 0
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 9 0
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 9 0
University of Wisconsin - Madison 9 0</p>
<p>The Virginia data--and many others include only the general endowment. UVa has other separate endowments for Law, Business, etc. So do many others.<br>
Research is but one ranking of the nine items so it is not dominating the ranking. If you don't think it is important that the profs are tops in their subject fine. But winning NAS membership, Fullbright, Guggenheim and other major awards usually is considered an indicator of being among the best and most schools issue press releases when they get them.</p>
<p>That's because this ranking is extremely flawed. Arizona State doesn't even come CLOSE to Michigan and Washington.</p>
<p>barrons, virginia's general endowment - atleast as of 2006 is 3.2 billion - excluding law endowments and such. </p>
<p>and barrons - i'm shocked that you think these are accurate. You really think the quality of education at the university of cincinatti is better then that of william and mary? The fact that w&m is practically dead last discredits this entire ranking system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Im surprised UMichigan was beat by ArizonaSU same with UWashington.
[/quote]
What'd you mean? In which category?</p>
<p>Not to be rude..but that is a really bad ranking of the top 25...I was convinced for about the first few..then I saw Arizona State and I knew this was wrong..</p>
<p>I agree with HeavenWood..."That's because this ranking is extremely flawed. Arizona State doesn't even come CLOSE to Michigan and Washington."</p>
<p>Rankings are based on:</p>
<p>Total research money & federal research money</p>
<p>Endowment and annual givings</p>
<p>National academy members and number of faculty awards</p>
<p>Doctorates granted and number of postdocs</p>
<p>SAT/ACT score range</p>
<p>I have to say, that's quite a random combination of factors to consider...I mean, are they trying to target undergraduates or graduate students here? Research money, nat'l academy members/awards, and doctorates/postdoc stats are generally more useful for graduate students considering a research program, while endowment/givings and SAT ranges are more useful for undergraduates.</p>
<p>Are these the only factors used? If so, I'd have to say the rankings aren't very 'complete.'</p>
<p>Yes-2006. It's a ranking as of 2005 which means most stats are for 2004. UVa still got a top ranking for endowment as it was in the top 25 so where it fell in that category does not really matter. UW has another $2 Billion in endowment not counted because it is in a separate fund.
As to W&M, it does not really belong in the heavy research category. When they use the new Carnegie groupings it will not be in the same category. It should be compared to large LAC's and schools with small grad depts.
Oh, and it's Fulbright awards. My typo. I think awards and NAS are pretty important. Profs with those awards can get you into a grad school pretty much on their recommendation. They will know everyone everywhere and that's important.</p>
<p>I think they should add library ranking and maybe the % of students going on to grad school and drop the post-docs/PhD's granted items.</p>
<p>well barrons - here are some big flaws with the ranking system</p>
<p>They use absolute figures vs. proportional figures. Im just using UVa as an example because thats what I know most about and it is generally regarded as top 3 publics by everyone - and its ranked in the high teens. </p>
<p>Starting from left to right. </p>
<p>Research money. How does research correlate with educational quality. Yes there may be more research opportunities, however wouldn't that also pull professors away from the classroom? It seems to be a double edged sword. Maybe for grad students and professors this is a good thing, but for undergrads it could mean a harder time meeting with professors.</p>
<p>Why is it total endowment instead of endowment/student? Michigan has 1.2 billion more than uva - which is a little less than 50% more than UVa's endowment. However Michigan has nearly 2x as many students as UVa. Wouldn't that suggest that while michigan on a whole has more money - it has less per individual student?</p>
<p>Annual Givings - look at UT Austin. They are no.1 with 262 million in donations. That is also rougly 50% more than what UVa gets at 168 million. However, UT also has 2x the amount of alumni - so there giving rate is 1/2 (or virginia alums donate more on average). Wouldn't that lead you to believe that people at virginia were more satisfied on a whole than people at UT?</p>
<p>can't argue with the awards for faculty - although im somewhat skeptical how much interaction the award winners have with the undergraduates. I know many awards go for research - and if ur doing research ur not teaching.</p>
<p>I dont know what a post doctoral appointee is - maybe someone can explain that to me.</p>
<p>sat ranges also you can't argue with - but it seems kinda weird that they use a lot of graduate important statistics and then throw this in there</p>
<p>I dunno - just sounds like a very odd methodology</p>
<p>So,</p>
<p>University of Florida
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
University of Texas - Austin
University of Washington - Seattle
Ohio State University - Columbus
Pennsylvania State University - University Park
University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh</p>
<p>Are all better than UVA? Interesting....</p>
<p>um...that's RESEARCH universities...please learn to read</p>
<p>
[quote]
um...that's RESEARCH universities...please learn to read
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uhm, was that directed at me?</p>