<p>i would be against peer assessment since overall rankings are obviously more representative. don't be such a public university troll just 'cause u go to indiana.</p>
<p>btw: why don't you go to bed. or better yet go read a book so you can transfer into a respectable college</p>
<p>stern is one of those douches who sets his worth on the college he attends. too bad he goes to NYU...must make him feel like crap.</p>
<p>Stern: That is uncalled for and I'm saying this despite the fact wolves said some bad things about me. It's best not to get personal online as it never solves anything.</p>
<p>If UCSD, Tufts, Wisconsin ect arent on the cc top college list, then NYU certainly does not belong. </p>
<p>Also, Haas>>>>>Stern.</p>
<p>Well, I chose UVa over NYU. =) I'm sorry, but I feel NYU's prestige and reputation, for undergrad at least, is much too inflated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um. The right abbreviation is "etc" not "ect" because it stands for the word "et cetera." Sorry but I see this all the time and it's my pet peeve. Okay so now you know:)</p>
<p>Sternman -- who cares who is on the top CC list? It's from a USNews ranking list that's several years out of date. As Wolves, myself, and others have said (repeatedly) peer assesment is far from fullproof; it's just one method (out of many) that used to rank. My future alma-mater, Tufts, is given a assessment score that's completely out of line with it's academic reputation, selectivity, and student body. It's not a sports school by any stretch of the imagination, and, unless if you are a learned academic or professional, you've probably only heard of it rarely. Hence, Wolves' comment about Minnesota having more general name recognition. Thus, Tufts doesn't do as well as it really should be doing on the USNews ranking (hence, the frequent agreement that Tufts is underranked). I think the WUSTL example serves well. He never said that Tufts was like Ohio State (its one of the 20 most selective schools in the US for goodness sake!). Wolves was merely explaining the workings behind the peer assessment ranking; don't go peevishly attacking him or his school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I don't believe I'm misunderstanding anything - and I certainly agree with you concerning WUSTL. However, college administrators are far from fullproof, especially when they have to rate hundreds of universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you two implied was that WUSTL gets better peer reviews because of its PR. I'm saying that it is overranked because of its PR, but it doesn't affect the peer reviews very much. This is why WUSTL has a lower peer assessment than the other top 15 schools. But yes I agree that peer assessment is far from perfect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think university presidents have the time to research every school's overall reputation, and thus, if they've heard of the school in one way or another (Worldband made one example of how WUSTL sends out fliers and publically advertises itself) then they are going to give it a higher peer rating, as schools will be looked into more. </p>
<p>That's what I my argument was with athletics, lots of schools with top notch athletics and solid schools (Minnesota comes to mind) may have a higher rating than a school like Tufts, who lacks the national reputation. I know that in the midwest, few kids know of Tufts, while everyone knows of a school like Minnesota through their hockey championships and football bowl games.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that if a university president heard about Minnesota through its hockey that it will rate Minnesota higher. I think s/he would realize that good athletics =/= good school. If s/he investigates Minnesota further because of hearing about it through athletics and finds out that it is good, then the peer assessment is justified.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I think that it's more telling of a school's quality and perception publically than the overall ranking in "</p>
<p>That means you think Ohio State should be tied in ranking with Tufts. At the least, it means you think Ohio and Tufts should be around the same ranking rather than the way they are now on the overall level. That is absurd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry A2Wolves6, but that is what you said. If you really believe that peer assessment is more telling than U.S. News, then you would believe that Ohio State and Tufts should be ranked closer together than U.S. News says.</p>
<p>But Sternman, I'll take you up on that. I'm not about to say that peer assessment is more accurate than U.S. News, but I do think that publics are often underranked in U.S. News and I do think that peer assessment often reflects that. So in this case, I do think Ohio State and Tufts should be ranked closer than on U.S. News. I'm not saying they are equal: I'm saying they should be ranked closer together.</p>
<p>I agree. Maybe OSU should be. It has top departments in many schools. The obvious differences? Selectivity and funding (public v. private) but neither can argue that a smart student @ OSU won't do as well as a Tufts student.</p>
<p>I'm surprised US News has not altered the rankings to help public schools. It gives it a "new" ranking feel (so people buy it and care), it shakes up the top schools a bit, and might get more publicity as some schools who don't commonly discuss the US news will bring up their ranking.</p>
<p>State schools tend to have high peer assessment scores thanks to strong graduate programs, not well-known athletics.</p>
<p>sternman,</p>
<p>microsoft is in washington not east coast</p>
<p>I sense liberal arts college bias coming on</p>
<p>That's what i've said, that the peer assessment rating is more telling of a school's overall reputation than it's overall rating. However, I never said that all peer assessment ratings were correct, nor did I say I agreed with certain ratings, which is what both of you are concluding witht the Tufts and Ohio State example. I never said that I agree with that individual rating, however, I agree with the peer assessment system as a whole. Association does not imply causation. </p>
<p>I still think it's kind of funny how this thread started saying that NYU belongs in as a top CC, solely because of Stern, and then Indiana was attacked as a school. Yet in business and in peer assessment, both schools are almost exactly the same, only 1-2 tenths difference in the US News rating (Indiana 3.7, NYU 3.8; business Indiana 4.0, NYU 4.2).</p>
<p>"State schools tend to have high peer assessment scores thanks to strong graduate programs"</p>
<p>Yep. I've posted this before and one problem with state schools is that they have an obligation to the State. Look at Berkeley and community college transfers. Look at the kids from Southern virginia getting into UVA with 3.0's while Northern Virginia kids have to struggle with 3.8's. </p>
<p>State schools go against the concept of Supply and Demand which any economist knows creates competition and boosts efficiency. With this "obligation" to accept sometimes less qualified kids or to give preference to in-state kids, state schools are often at a disadvantage compared to private schools that can always accept the best and most qualified applicants. </p>
<p>In fact, I think it was true a few years ago that the University of Virginia talked about breaking away and becoming a private. </p>
<p>My point isn't that privates are the best or even better but just to point out that public schools are at an inherent disadvantage because of their state obligations at the undergraduate level. Whether publics are underrated or not is open for discussion but I thought I'd just like to offer a reason on why maybe some people think and act the way they do. I was reading on the Berkeley board a couple of weeks ago on an argument of whether the community college kids should have such an easy time transferring in.</p>
<p>Sternman, why are you such a douche? NYU must stink if you are "the best of NYU". ALthough I go to a private school, I have a lot of respect for public school, esp. the UC's. And if UCSD isn't on the top college board, then NYU DEFINITELY doesnt deserve to be on there.</p>
<p>And seriously, who cares abotu jp morgan or whatever the else was on that list of large corporations on the east coast. Given a choice I'D WORK FOR GOOGLE!</p>
<p>Google is opening up a branch in my hometown Ann Arbor, bringing 1000 jobs, i'm excited!</p>
<p>Me too!</p>
<p>"Carnegie Mellon Professor Chosen To Head Google Engineering Office in Pittsburgh"</p>
<p>That's more of a computer science/ece thing though. Most business major kids tend to shy away from such companies. The only exception is for IBM (top 10 Fortune company) where all the kids who went there were Consultants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
State schools tend to have high peer assessment scores thanks to strong graduate programs, not well-known athletics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's interesting, because I happen to have a copy of the U.S. News Top Colleges 2004 edition in hand. Looking at the top LACs, Williams and Amherst both earned a peer assessment score of 4.7, out of a top score of 5.0. Geez, how could that be since they both have NO graduate programs nor well-known athletics? Maybe it's because university faculty and presidents aren't idiots who can't even separate a school's undergraduate quality from its graduate programs or its athletics.</p>
<p>Think I made those stats up? I scanned the page for you. Enjoy:</p>
<p>I would think that obviously when asked about Liberal Arts Colleges, the deans would use different criteria to give their rating than they would from National Universities.</p>
