<p>Brown University & Tufts University. Both are definitely underrated.</p>
<p>Are you more interested in the students or the teachers? The qualifications of the student body at either school are very good to excellent. There are more very smart students at either of these schools than any of the smaller LAC's at the most elite level. A smart person will not be alone.</p>
<p>Most academcis means people like the president of Stanford and all the professors who take part in the NRC studies that always rank UM and UCB very highly. That would mean the majority of top professors in the US who take part in the ranking survey. It is very well substantiated in those studies.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/%5B/url%5D">http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/</a></p>
<p>to be honest, i think that UMichigan is completely overated on these boards. Before I came here, I never even for one second considered Michigan to be on par with the very top privates. When I think of Michigan, I equate it with schools like Emory and Vanderbilt. I know that Michigan has an esteemed faculty, but let's face it, its students on the WHOLE aren't as talented as the students at other schools. And honestly, if you looked at cross-admit data between Michigan and other top privates (except for kids in the state of michigan), you will see that UMich loses prob more than 9 out of 10 times to top privates. Why should one go to Michigan over a top private or ivy league out of state. Michigan may be 5-6,000 cheaper, but financial aid at other schools will often reduce this disparity in price.</p>
<p>It is a phenomenal school, but come on, its rank on US News I feel is just.</p>
<p>I mean, why should Michigan be higher than the top 17 schools. I could possibly see Michigan higher than Emory or Vanderbilt, but let's look at the top 17.</p>
<p>H
Y
P
MIT
DUKE
Stanford
Upenn
Columbia
Dartmouth
Northwestern
Wash U
Cornell
Brown
Chicago
JHU
RIce</p>
<p>the students at ALL of these schools are on average very talented...(obviously, not all of them), but a MUCH higher percentage of them are, as opposed to michigan's students</p>
<p>good day</p>
<p>and i am honestly starting to question the validity of the peer assessment score on US News</p>
<p>for one, it constantly fluctuates, even though ppl here will disagree</p>
<p>within 2 years, Rice has fluctuated between a 4.3 and a 4.1
Upenn, has fluctuated between a 4.5 and 4.6
Brown, 4.4 and 4.5
Wash U, 4.0 and 4.1
Columbia, 4.6 and 4.7
Michigan, between 4.5 and 4.7</p>
<p>obviously, this assessment score isn't entirely accurate or valid, since there is such wide variation each yr</p>
<p>I would agree that particular assessment value is variable. It's worth is debatable.</p>
<p>However, variation of 1/10 +/- point per year is hardly worth mentioning.</p>
<p>I've always questioned the entire USNews formula. How can one realistically keep down top schools like Georgetown, Tufts, and Brown on these rankings? How can a school's reputation flunctuate on a yearly basis??? Regardless of some silly "Peer Assessment" reality tells us that schools like the three I've mentioned have superb, academically excellent students, extremely selective, and are internationally-renowned in their respective programs. It bothers me, as I know it bothers many others. As to the UMich debate, UMich has great programs, but as its entry stats for students suggests, Their students are not quite on par with schools like the three i've mentioned.</p>
<p>Top schools down...like Georgetown and Tufts? </p>
<p>What are they ranked, i thought Gtown was top 20 on the US News.</p>
<p>Brown, I would argue, is underrated on US News rankings, but just because I think it is, whereas the US News rankings uses an objective formula.</p>
<p>Well, Neither Brown, Tufts, nor Georgetown are low ranked lol - they're all among the best. I use these three as they are prime examples of elite universities that tend to get short-changed based upon the weights of how a USNews rankings is assigned. Also, the idea that rankings can change annually by as much as 7 points etc. is very questionable. </p>
<p>What I was stating was that, as is well-known, that the USNEWS rankings are extremely controversial and should be taken with a large grain of salt, especially when one analyses their formula versus factors that really count (i.e. strength and recognition of programs, attention to undergraduates, etc.) There are plenty of CC discussions on the issue, of which many can be searched for very easily.</p>
<p>Other than International Relations, and perhaps education, what is Tufts "internationally renowned" for? At the undergrad level, of course. Please enlighten us.</p>
<p>Let me see--bunch of mostly HS kids who have never set foot on a campus or the President of Stanford and the NRC which is part of the National Academy of Sciences which consists of the most highly regarded profs and researchers in the US. Who just might know a bit more?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.</p>
<p>harvard is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo effing overrated.</p>
<p>ok--i have read ur posts--ur a very big supported of big state schools, i.e. Wisconsin and Michigan</p>
<p>Wisconsin's peer-assessment score is higher than Rice</p>
<p>let's compare the students</p>
<p>Wisconsin SAT average like a 1250
Rice is like a 1430</p>
<p>at Harvard Law, Rice is like 1/7 the size of wisconsin and has like 6-7 times as many kids at harvard than does wisconsin</p>
<p>so the higher peer assessment score MEANS NOTHING, apparently to harvard law admissions ppl.</p>
<p>How many from UW apply to Harvard? UW has its own good law school which if you graduate from it you don't need to take the bar exam. Many like that option and the tuition is cheap. Harvard has 15 major CEO's and so does Wisconsin. The most of any schools.</p>
<p>I am not quoting myself here--The President of Stanford for one. The NRC for another. If you don't like peer assessment you can look at the number of faculty who have been elected to major elite groups such as the NAS and the others or those who win the top research awards such as Guggenheim, NSF, etc. The answer will be about the same.</p>
<p>bball87 - Exactly. Peer Assessment means rubbish. </p>
<p>Barrons - I agree. A bunch of CC'ers mostly in HS, or people out in the real and professional communities. Hmm...which one are we going to believe. </p>
<p>eng_dude - I am not getting into yet another argument with you, especially considering the fact that you have a long and established record of bashing Tufts. Tufts IR, Classics, Humanities, and pre-med are extremely well-respected. Don't start an annoying rant against this.</p>
<p>I'm not in HS, but you can tell how good a school is by the quality of the students that you know who get accepted there...</p>
<p>Yes. Exactly.</p>
<p>Just asking for clarification Worldband, that's all. If you are going to make such bold assertions, you should be prepared to back your statements up. On what basis do you make your claim? Classics, Humanities and pre-med by themseleves aren't specific traditional academic disciplines, either, so it might be more helpful to be a little more specific. There are many disciplines within the classics and humanities. So which ones are they? And what evidence can you present, other than "you said so". Sorry if I come across as such a thorn in your side, but I don't appreciate unfounded assertions.</p>
<p>It is that you constantly seem to be attacking both me and Tufts, on many of the forums, including the Tufts general forum. Were you rejected by Tufts?You may not appreciate "unfound assertions," but neither do I. There are some posters who belittle the school and refute the fact that Tufts is a top school. Look, for students wishing to go down the medical track, Tufts offers outstanding biology/child physchology/etc programmes = pre-med. They are one of the top schools for producing excellent med-school applicants. Please see Princeton Review's Top Professional Boot Camp Schools, which the top 3 are JHU, MIT, and Tufts. I don't know where you are in school, whether a junior, senior in HS, or in college, but the World doesn't follow ranking systems, and it is very easy to become too self-absorbed in them. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just saying for good measure. As you already know, for IR Tufts is one of, if not the best, competing with GU for the top spot. If you want stats, the Gourman report supports this, as does the FP rankings (although those are for graduate schools). When I mean humanities, I mean English/Languages/History. A strong IR programme requires strong history and language programmes. These are not bold assertions, they are simply well-known facts that most informed prosepctives and professionals know. In the same light, Tufts is not known for the engineering programs; although they offer a lot of undergraduate focus, they simply are not the focus of the University. I believe we can probably come to some agreement so that in future we can assist one another in posts, not spark arguments.</p>
<p>Fine by me. If asking questions in order to uncover the reasoning behind statements made without supporting evidence is considered attacking, then I'm completely guilty. If stating that a university is considered internationally reputed because most informed prospectives and professionals "know" it is, that may be good enough for you, but it doesn't do much for me. So be it, then. Believe me, I have no interest in sparking arguments, yet when one cannot question statements made on this board, then this whole site pretty much loses its value.</p>
<p>Ok. 1st thing, stop the deep sarcasm. 2nd. What do you want. A USNews Rankings that makes little sense? I gave you evidence, as much as honestly can be provided without me going out right at this moment and asking anyuone walking down the street. What do you want me to say? What is your bloody problem with Tufts University? Do you want CC proof? Search nearly any of ariesathena's or blurinka's comments - they are/were Tufts students who know a lot about the Institution.</p>