<p>Where did Cannon come from? Are you saying that if we have the option of choosing between two things we should choose some random third party?</p>
<p>Im wondering the same thing...maybe he made a mistake.</p>
<p>It was meant to say that many times we make a big list of pluses and minuses, but when the time comes we just go with the gut feeling on an option you had not considered before.</p>
<p>Sam,</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies. </p>
<p>Simba, </p>
<p>I think data like these are invaluable. Combining them with the US News ranking should give one a more balanced feel of how to compare between schools, if you know what major of your study.</p>
<p>cajundad:</p>
<p>perhaps, but you have to see the context. The book was published in 1995, so the data itself might be 12-15 year old. Afterall, Duke is ranked 5th in the nation. It can't be fifth with such a weak faculty as the data suggests, and perhaps the graduate programs are not that strong. If you look at the student body, the average Duke student is on the higher side of the scores. Don't forget, students learn as much from peers as in the class rooms. The class room instructions may be same (they all use same text books), but the dynamics might be different.</p>
<p>In general, class room instruction is tailored to the mean of the class. If the class mean is higher, quality of instruction is better.</p>
<p>simba,</p>
<p>Those rankings, although a bit outdated, are very close to the rankings you'd find from US News graduate ranking today (for example, the newest US News ranks Duke's graduate BME #4). Departmental rankings don't change much in a decade because faculty turnover is typically very low. So it's not really the date that you have a problem with; you just don't like departmental rankings which don't favor Duke as much as the US News overall undergraduate ranking does. While I do agree that having peers of high caliber facilitates learning, I also believe the graduate rankings are valuable. The faculty teach not only graduate but also undergrad classes. I assume that you believe Duke has a top "undergrad" BME program (that actually comes from graduate ranking!); so why is this graduate departmental ranking so applicable to undergard while others are not? :)</p>
<p>sam lee, but duke has that wow factor that NU doesn't have.</p>
<p>Grad school ratings are only marginally relevant for an undergraduate education at most school. The reason for this is that the top notch professors rarely if ever teach undergrads at most schools. The reason why Duke is such a good undergrad program is that at Duke all professors are required to teach undergrads and programs like FOCUS make top notch faculty easily accessible. Furthermore, the fact that Northwestern also has a quarter system that makes it difficult to settle into classes and meet professors makes the top notch grad school at Northwestern irrelevant in the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>cowrus,
I cannot say if professors are more or less accessible at Northwestern because I didn't go to Duke. The quarter systems don't necessarily mean you have less interaction with professors. For example, at Northwestern, students take 45-48 courses to graduate. Such high number of courses are possible because of the quarter system and that makes it easier to take more than one class with the same professor. You can think of different scenarios to argue for both sides. I just don't believe it's so clear-cut. I think its the students' initiative that holds the key. </p>
<p>simba,
How is Duke "wow" and Northwestern "blah"? You statement is rather presumptuous. I agree that Duke has the SLIGHT edge on reputation. The difference isn't day and night like you seemed to imply. In few big industries such as business, engineering, entertainment and news, Northwestern is probably better known than Duke.</p>
<p>I think northwestern is better in journalism and duke is better thaneverything else</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think northwestern is better in journalism and duke is better thaneverything else
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! So much bias and lies on this board.</p>
<p>I know this is outdated and such, but I was looking at Northwestern, Duke, and Upenn for ED. Northwestern is no doubt the best school in the country for journalism (devil wears prada... haha), so definitely go there for the journalism programs. For engineering, i'm sure northwestern's program is better than Duke's in some areas. However, if you're going for a well rounded, liberal-arts style kind of education, choose Duke.</p>
<p>It's pretty petty to compare any of the top 20 or so schools. I mean, there's essentially only three things of value in weighing what school to go to. 1. quality of education that will be received 2. outside of class experience (a much larger proportion than the 2.5 hours of class each day) 3. brand name value of the degree</p>
<ol>
<li><p>the quality of education received at top universities is actually pretty similar. First of all, you're learning the same concepts from the same textbooks. Pretty crazy, huh? Secondly, I don't know how many of you are in college but the class structure and what is covered is left largely up to the professor, aka the quality is largely determined by the merits of the professor. If you haven't realized this already, many professors have taught at multiple universities. Ask, and you may find many of them starting at state universities. Personally, I'm a freshman and out of my first five classes, one of them had been a professor at Stanford and one had been a professor at Princeton. The other three I wasn't as intimate with or their previous teaching wasn't brought up. My point is, if one person is teaching a class at one school and then teaches at another, is there really a difference in so-called 'education'? A lot of people like to talk about 'department strength' as well. But can you really say that your Philosophy degree at X University has taught you better or given you a greater understanding than the Philosophy degree at Y University? Hell, you may not have even studied the same topics.</p></li>
<li><p>Outside the classroom aka the vast majority of your time in my opinion is a very, very significant factor. Yes some time will be spent doing homework and everyone likes to complain how they have 10 papers, 5 novels, 4 tests and a partridge in a pear tree due the next day. But you'll definitely have a lot more free time in college than you ever did in high school. Atmophere, fit, etc is perhaps the most important aspect of choosing what college to attend. The intelligence of your peers will have a noticeable effect on this atmosphere. Yet many of the top 20 or so schools have distinctive and greatly varying atmospheres. At any of the top schools you'll be typically spending about 2.5 hours a day in class and I'm sure many of you will staying up very, very late as well. Atmsophere is very important.</p></li>
<li><p>Brand name value to employers - as stated by many ppl on this site, virtually vanishes after a few years of employment. Your actual skills, intelligence, and knowledge will be put to the test on the job, a much important indicator to employers than the name on your degree. Not to mention, most ppl at the top universities will wind up in grad school, one with a different name than their alma mater.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For the serious student here looking for advice on what college to attend, sure, you can take the advice of 'choose Duke' from a kid who's location is: DUKE!!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, I would not look at colleges through some sort of linear system. Each of the top twenty or so universities will teach you what you want to know, and then some. And then some more. And then a whole lot more.</p>
<p>Personally, I chose to attend Rice over Duke and my twin brother with similar stats (he didn't apply to Duke) chose to attend Northwestern over a wealth of other top universities. I'm not going to be a walking advertisement for Rice here - believe me I can go on for pages - because that's not my intention here. Rice, Duke, Northwestern - all the top universities - have vastly different atmospheres. Visiting the schools may give you a great sense of this - but even researchig the school online can give you a pretty good idea. That's my two cents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason why Duke is such a good undergrad program is that at Duke all professors are required to teach undergrads
[/quote]
This is not true, at least in practice, and would be a negative. Professors who are forced to teach against their will, so to speak, may be brilliant, but they make bad professors.</p>
<p>And there are plenty of profs at Duke who teach very rarely or not at all; there are often opt-out provisions for research dollars or administrative duties.</p>
<p>The key element for me is that Duke's hiring and priorities clearly give weight to teaching undergrads -- not totally, of course, but more than many other peer schools. This, to my way of thinking, makes a large difference and is one of the key advantages, I think, that we have over schools that have better "reputations" (what? who?!).</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is Duke "wow" and Northwestern "blah"?
[/quote]
Basketball, obviously.</p>