New USNWR rankings

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
1

<p>Overall ranking has not changed. #28, which is pretty much par for the course given the formula. </p>

<p>Not much else has changed:</p>

<p>PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE (top 20)
Not much has changed here. Michigan has always had a PA in the 4.4-4.5 range. This year, for the third time in 5 years, Michigan's PA was 4.5. It's closest academic peer in terms of quality and prestige in the eyes of academe are Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Penn and UVa.</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard University 4.9</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.9</li>
<li>Princeton University 4.9</li>
<li>Stanford University 4.9</li>
<li>Yale University 4.8</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology 4.7</li>
<li>University of California-Berkeley 4.7</li>
<li>Columbia University 4.6</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University 4.6</li>
<li>University of Chicago 4.6</li>
<li>Cornell University 4.5</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4.5</li>
<li>Brown University 4.4</li>
<li>Duke University 4.4</li>
<li>Northwestern University 4.4</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania 4.4</li>
<li>Dartmouth College 4.3</li>
<li>University of Virginia 4.3</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University 4.2</li>
<li>University of California-Los Angeles 4.2</li>
</ol>

<p>GRADUATION RATE:
Michigan continues to improve on this front. Currently, 91% of Michigan students graduate, up from 89% in 2011 and 90% in 2012. In the 1990s, this was one of the major differentiating factors between public and private elites. Private elites had graduation rates in the 90%-95% range, while public elites had graduation rates in the 80%-85% range. Today, private and public elites have graduation rates in the 90%-95% range.</p>

<p>BUSINESS RANKING:
Michigan improved from #3 to #2. It is currently tied with Haas (Cal) and Sloan (MIT). That is a nice move, and the program will likely solidify its position with the generous $100 million gift from Ross. </p>

<p>ENGINEERING RANKING:
Michigan remained at #7 overall. In the specialities, it did very well, placing in the top 10 in all but one speciality. I always love it when Michigan is ranked #2 in Mechanical Engineering:
- Aerospace Engineering #3
- Biomedical Engineering #7
- Chemical Engineering #11
- Civil Engineering #8
- Computer Engineering #7
- Electrical Engineering #6
- Engineering Physics #8
- Environmental Engineering #4
- Industrial Engineering #2
- Materials #7
- Mechanical Engineering #2</p>

<p>SELECTIVITY RANKING:
Michigan continues to inch its way up the ranking. In 2011, it was #26, in 2012 it was #24 and this year it is #22. This trend will likely continue for a while as Michigan's applicant pool continues to grow rapidly as a result of having joined the Common App four years ago. I anticipate Michigan's acceptance rate to drop to under 30% this year. Once this happens, it is off to the races. </p>

<p>Universities with similar selectivity rankings (#15-#30) include Boston College, Cal, CMU, Cornell, Emory, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, Tufts, UCLA, USC and UVa. No doubt about it, Michigan is extremely selective. </p>

<p>Among public universities, Michigan was the most selective university, with Cal and UVa being tied at #2, UCLA coming in at #4, UNC and W&M weighing in at #5 and Georgia Tech at #7.</p>

<p>If private universities reported data with the integrity that public universities do, all of those public universities would be placed significantly higher in the selectivity ranking. </p>

<p>UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING
For the fourth time in five years, Michigan has made the list of 15 universities with distinguished undergraduate teaching. This year, Michigan was ranked #12.</p>

<p>Overall, Michigan did well. Where it hurts the most is in the Faculty and Financial Resources categories. Not surprisingly, that is where most public universities trail private universities, not because they are truly weaker in those areas, but because private universities manipulate data. In fact, where financial resources are concerned, comparing public universities to private universities is completely pointless because, not because they are poorer, but because they have completely different philosophies, sources of income etc... Michigan's financial resources ranking should not be ranked #40. Hell, it should not be ranked out of the top 15. </p>

<p>As long as the USNWR insists on using such loose, manipulated, irrelevant and inconsistent data to determine faculty and financial resources, public universities are not going to be adequately and accurately ranked in its annual publication.</p>

2

<p>I like that the PA score is back at 4.5</p>

3

<p>“Meanwhile UCLA’s PA continues to make no sense whatsoever. UCLA is neck and neck with Michigan in pretty much every field except engineering, it’s a top 10 university in most world rankings (e.g. AWRU and THES) and the highest ranked public after Berkeley, and it had more top 10 programs in the last NRC rankings than anyone except Harvard and Berkeley…and yet it noticeably lags Michigan and even the much weaker UVA. Very strange.”</p>

<p>Actually I’d say Michigan’s overall ranking at USNWR makes less sense since it has a higher PA score than all but 10 schools.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>I actually think it results from fallacious reasoning:

  1. Berkeley is distinguished (score of 5)
  2. UCLA is not Berkeley
  3. UCLA is not distinguished (score of 4)</p>

<p>I think what hurts UCLA the most is that it has an in-state alternative which is generally considered its better, unlike Michigan, and UNC, and Texas. Another good example might be to look at the PA scores of UVA vs W&M, where I expect the former generally enjoys a much better PA score based on the (fallacious) reasoning I outlined above.</p>

5

<p>Warblersrule and beyphy, I have always maintained that the PA measures a university’s PERCEIVED excellence in undergraduate education and I often correct those who claim that it is merely a reflection of a university’s research activity and graduate programs. Naturally, strong graduate programs and research enhance a university’s perceived excellence, but many other factors go into it as well, such as resources provided to undergraduate students, curriculum and academic innovation and the quality of the students graduating from the university’s undergraduate programs. I also think Michigan has a broader national reputation thanks to its significantly more geographic diversity. If the PA were truly just a reflection of graduate school excellence and research activity, why do Dartmouth and Brown do better than Texas-Austin, UCLA and UDub? </p>

<p>I also agree with beyphy. Having to contend with Cal in the same state will likely hurt UCLA.</p>

6

<p>I have added some analysis to my OP on this thread for those who are interested.</p>

7

<p>How did Michigan’s top 10% class rank drop from 95% to 65% in one year?</p>

8

<p>That looks like a typo Go Blue.</p>

9

<p>Imagine USNWR making a typo? It’s really quite ridiculous how influential this undergraduate ranking has become. It seems that there there is just to much manipulation in the so called objective data anymore to really trust the results. Certain posters here on CC love to discount the PA scores, but in reality they are the only numbers that individual schools cannot change and use to their advantage.</p>

10

<p>The typo did not affect the selectivity rank though, so I would not be overly concerned. But I agree rjk, ironically, the only aspect of the USNWR ranking that cannot be manipulated by a university is its PA rating. I still cannot get over how private universities omit thousands of graduate students from their student to faculty ratios.</p>

11

<p>“I still cannot get over how private universities omit thousands of graduate students from their student to faculty ratios.”</p>

<p>…or don’t submit the SAT/ACT scores of thousands of undergraduate students in some colleges within their university, or manipulate classroom reporting size to get under the magic 20:1 ratio…etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>In other words, I don’t trust the “objective” numbers that many private schools send in to USNWR.</p>

12

<p>I agree rjk, but in the case of the student to faculty ratios, the evidence is clear. The fact that the USNWR is perfectly content to publish those ratios means that they are complicit.</p>

<p>I have said it before and I will say it again, if data were accurately, honestly and relevantly used, there would be several public universities ranked among the top 20.</p>

13

<p>^^Are you inferring that Michigan’s PA score is too high warblersrule? That is what the above statement suggests to me.</p>

14

<p>Does Michigan count GSI’s as part of their student:faculty ratio? Do higher ranked privates use GSI’s?</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>No, Michigan does not count GSIs as faculty for purposes of calculating student-faculty ratios. The instructions clearly say to exclude them, and Michigan follows the instructions.</p>

<p>Yes, all major research universities use GSIs.</p>

16

<p>@Fatsquirrel Neither Michigan nor the top privates use GSI’s in their faculty count. What most top privates will do though is include nearly all their faculty in the ratio, but only count undergraduate students. This is why you get absurd student:faculty ratios like 6.7:1 for Harvard or Duke’s reported 7:1 ratio, and even the absolutely hilarious 3:1 ratio claimed by CalTech.</p>

17

<p>Ah I see. Interesting, thank you.</p>

18

<p>Okay, why hasn’t this been corrected for years? How does USC and UMich have the same overall graduate engineering program ranking as 9th?</p>

<p>[University</a> of Southern California | Overall Rankings | Best College | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-southern-california-123961/overall-rankings]University”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-southern-california-123961/overall-rankings)
[University</a> of Michigan–Ann Arbor | Overall Rankings | Best College | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-170976/overall-rankings]University”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-170976/overall-rankings)</p>

<p>USC’s best ranked engineering specialty is 12th; meanwhile, Michigan’s worst engineering specialty is 12th.</p>

<p>Oh, and a 3:1 ratio by Caltech doesn’t seem that hard to believe since they have less than 1000 students.</p>

19

<p>Here’s an example of the kind of flagrant manipulation of student-faculty ratios Alexandre is talking about: </p>

<p>First, it looks like Penn includes all of its faculty for purposes of calculating its student-faculty ratio, even though the instructions clearly state that “both faculty and students in stand-alone graduate or professional programs such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, business, or public health in which faculty teach virtually only graduate level students” should be excluded. That inflates Penn’s faculty figure for purposes of calculating its student-faculty ratio.</p>

<p>On the student side of that ratio, Penn lists 9,477 students. In the same document (2012-13 common data set) it lists 9,682 undergraduates and 11,657 graduate and professional students, for a total of 21,339 students. They list 308 of the undergraduates as being part-time. The instructions say to use “full-time equivalent” students (i.e., full-time plus 1/3 of the part-timers). If you do the math, you can see that 9,477 represents all of Penn’s full-time undergraduates plus 1/3 of their part-time undergraduates. But the instructions say that only graduate students in “stand-alone graduate and professional programs” should be excluded from the student figure for purposes of calculating a student-faculty ratio. Penn’s law and medical schools are “stand-alone” programs. Wharton isn’t, because the same faculty teach MBA and BBA programs, Its graduate programs in arts & sciences and engineering aren’t “stand-alone” programs. All those students–probably most of its 11,657 graduate and professional students–should be included as students for purposes of calculating their student-faculty ratio. If they were following the instructions and reporting it honestly. </p>

<p>If they were being honest, their student-faculty ratio would probably be double, 12:1 instead of the 6:1 they report, maybe even a bit higher. That would put them in a similar range to UNC-Chapel Hill (14:1) or Michigan (16:1). The figure they report is just completely fraudulent.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>According to Caltech’s 2012-13 common data set, they have 997 undergraduates. But they have 1,246 graduate students, for a total of 2,243 students, all full-time. For purposes of calculating their student-faculty ratio, they count only the 997 undergrads. The instructions clearly state that only graduate students in “stand-alone graduate and professional programs” should be excluded from the student figure used in that calculation. As far as I know, all of Caltech’s graduate students are in programs like engineering, math, and physics, where the same faculty teach both undergrads and graduate students. If that’s the case, then their student-faculty ratio should be based on 2,243 students, not 997. That means the ratio should be about 125% higher than the 3:1 they report, or closer to 7:1. That’s still a terrific student-faculty ratio, but the figure they report is fraudulent.</p>

<p>The sad thing is, US News doesn’t check or make any effort to verify the self-serving data submitted by private colleges, because they just don’t care. If schools like Penn and Caltech look good as a result of reporting phony numbers, it probably sells more magazines. The whole US News ranking is a joke.</p>