Over/Underrated Colleges

College Search & Selection
261

<p>Like it or not, all the schools look at PA score when compare themselves. Look at Princeton, arguably the top notch school for undergraduate studies, and the road to tenure for their professors. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/510935-tenure-road-rough-professors.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/510935-tenure-road-rough-professors.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>PA score is determined by the research output and its impact from an institution. If a professor is great at teaching and not a great researcher, he can kiss Princeton good bye. So, if all the top tier schools are in favor of PA score, the ranking should lean heavily toward PA score if anything. A lot of folks in CC tend to favor schools that give more edge to UG, but in reality, all these schools are striving for the research U title. The other factors are important, but should not be as important as PA score.</p>

262

<p>If you take Brian Leiter's raw total scores on the three criteria and sort 'em, this is how they come out:</p>

<ol>
<li>Caltech 293</li>
<li>Chicago 258</li>
<li>MIT 239</li>
<li>Princeton 237</li>
<li>Harvard 236</li>
<li>Stanford 230</li>
<li>Yale 229</li>
<li>Columbia 222</li>
<li>Penn 220</li>
<li>Northwestern 214</li>
<li>Emory 212</li>
<li>Duke 210</li>
<li>Berkeley 205</li>
<li>WUSTL 204</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 204</li>
<li>Cornell 202</li>
<li>Brown 195</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon 195</li>
<li>Michigan 192</li>
<li>Case Western 192</li>
<li>Dartmouth 190</li>
<li>UCLA 189</li>
<li>Wisconsin 189</li>
<li>Brandeis 188</li>
<li>Vanderbilt 187</li>
<li>NYU 186</li>
<li>Washington 186</li>
<li>UCSD 185</li>
<li>U Rochester 184</li>
<li>Illinois 183</li>
<li>Tufts 183</li>
<li>North Carolina 182</li>
<li>Virginia 182</li>
<li>USC 181</li>
<li>Minnesota 179</li>
<li>Texas 177</li>
</ol>

263

<p>It's clear Brian Leiter is biased towards strong math/science schools. Chicago, Caltech and MIT as the top 3 schools? Come on.</p>

264

<p>Vastly Overrated: Penn, WUSTL,
Slightly Overrated: Top public schools (Umich), Uchicago, Cornell
Slightly Underrated: Brown, MIT
Vastly Underrated: Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown</p>

265

<p>I re-did Leiter's scores with up-to-date data on student/faculty ratio and SAT averages and got:</p>

<ol>
<li>Caltech 294</li>
<li>Princeton 249</li>
<li>Stanford 241</li>
<li>MIT 238.</li>
<li>Yale 238</li>
<li>Harvard 237</li>
<li>Chicago 235</li>
<li>Columbia 232</li>
<li>Penn 230</li>
<li>Rice 223</li>
<li>Northwestern 215</li>
<li>Duke 213</li>
<li>Cornell 210</li>
<li>WashU 210</li>
<li>Emory 207</li>
<li>Berkeley 207</li>
<li>Brown 204</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 199</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon 198</li>
<li>Brandeis 195</li>
<li>Dartmouth 195</li>
<li>Michigan 194</li>
<li>Rochester 193</li>
<li>UCLA 191</li>
<li>Vanderbilt 191</li>
<li>USC 190</li>
<li>Wisconsin 190</li>
<li>Tufts 188</li>
<li>Washington 188</li>
<li>NYU 188</li>
<li>Case Western 187</li>
<li>UCSD 185</li>
<li>North Carolina 185</li>
<li>Virginia 183</li>
<li>Texas 181</li>
<li>Illinois 180</li>
<li>Georgetown 179</li>
<li>Ohio State 176</li>
<li>Minnesota 176</li>
<li>Notre Dame 175</li>
<li>Rutgers 175</li>
<li>Georgia Tech 172</li>
<li>Maryland 169</li>
<li>Purdue 169</li>
<li>Penn State 169</li>
</ol>

<p>It should be noted that this leaves out any schools Leiter didn't include initially (including some quite good ones, Wake Forest is one example).</p>

266

<p>My listing was back-of-the-envelope. Absent better measures, I listed as "overrated" schools with high USN rankings bolstered by high selectivity rankings despite lower peer assessment scores than others in their cohort. I listed as "underrated" schools with significantly higher peer assessment scores than others in their USN cohort, with their overall USN rankings brought down in part by lower selectivity rankings. Crude, I'll admit, but it gets at the idea that some schools are more popular with applicants than their faculty quality merits ("overrated" in my book) while others are less popular with applicants than faculty quality warrants. That's not to say schools like Middlebury, Colgate, etc are not fine schools; only that they're more selective than other schools with arguably better faculties. Their popularity with applicants ("selectivity") bolsters their USN ratings and that allows them to attract even more applicants. So they're only in part popular because they're good, and they're in part popular just for being popular---i.e., overrated. </p>

<p>I'd use a better measure of faculty quality if one were available, but I don't have one.</p>

267

<p>Bclinton,
In your post above (#256), you mention “top” faculty and “mediocre” faculty. How do you differentiate between the two? Is there only one value set for measuring this, ie, is there only one institutional model for what constitutes a “top” faculty? Do you think that the way that an institution motivates and rewards faculty is or should be aligned with the interests of its undergraduate students?</p>

268

<p>Check out this very interesting (and related) thread.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/412606-how-calculate-universitie-s-peer-assessment-score.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/412606-how-calculate-universitie-s-peer-assessment-score.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From post #9:

[quote]
So, let's all underscore (again) the three most advantaged schools (and thus over-ranked schools) by the questionable and manipulated PA are:</p>

<p>12 Cal—Berk 4.49 4.8 0.31
16 Columbia 4.31 4.6 0.29
18 Michigan 4.24 4.5 0.26
and were it a top 25 school
30 Wisconsin 3.88 4.1 0.22

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And post #35:

[quote]
For liberal arts colleges, peer assessment scores calculated from quantitative data are generally quite close to the actual US News Peer Assessment ratings:</p>

<p>predicted rank, school, predicted peer assessment score, actual peer assessment rating</p>

<p>1 Amherst College 4.57 4.7
2 Carleton College 4.47 4.4
3 Williams College 4.46 4.7
4 Harvey Mudd 4.41 4.1
5 Pomona College 4.37 4.2
6 Bowdoin College 4.28 4.3
7 Swarthmo College 4.27 4.6
8 Middlebury College 4.26 4.2
9 Wesleyan Universi 4.25 4.2
10 Washingt Lee 4.20 3.9
11 Vassar College 4.15 4.1
12 Wellesle College 4.15 4.5
13 Haverfor College 4.13 4.1
14 US Naval 4.09 4.0
15 Davidson College 4.03 4.2
16 Colgate Universi 4.00 4.0
17 Claremon McKenna 4.00 4.0
18 Bates College 4.00 4.0
19 Grinnell College 3.96 4.3
20 Colby College 3.96 4.0

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Using this model (imperfect as it is), the highest ranked schools with actual PA scores that are less than predicted (underrated) include:
Carleton
Harvey Mudd
Pomona
Middlebury
Wesleyan
etc.</p>

269

<p>Sval: Thank you for that update. </p>

<p>I think Leiter's methodology has a lot of merit, and it is certainly well thought out. I like how (in the link) he puts the universities into groups rather than being uber-precise about the numerical order of the total score ---- an acknowledgement that a point or two difference means that universities are peers, not that one is "better" than the other. </p>

<p>Leiter's effort is a lot more valid, being entirely fact-based, than the endless this-is-what-I-think personal lists and the opinion-dominated lists produced by methods that weigh heavily on peer assessment or, the far more unreliable opinions registered in ratemyprofessor. And his method does favor research universities, but I don't have a problem with that.</p>

270

<p>From a international student ..
Overrated:UPenn ,Duke
How can they rank Upenn over Columbia..Columbia in my opinion is the second best Ivy after harvard ...Columbia has more nobel prices(Nobel laureates by university affiliation) than any other american university...What can i say about Duke..It's a wonderful school but still higher than it should be.</p>

<p>Underrated:Rice, Berkeley, UCLA, UT austin,FSU,Umich...</p>

271

<p>i appreciate leiter's methodology for ranking universities, it's interesting and he makes valid points about the flaws in USNWR rankings, but i can't necessarily appreciate his assertion that even the top LAC's should be considered amongst the #4 peer category. admitted students at WAS who considered the schools a match/reach probably considered a school like Case Western a safety/match, or even Carnegie Mellon and Rice to be such schools (Peer Group 3). of course, me saying this is all very anecdotal, but just look at admitted student profiles. doesn't this ranking place too much emphasis on peer respect of faculty? the only thing that evaluates admitted students is SAT scores in leiter's rankings (which is ridiculous).
i admit i didn't read the whole thing (sorry, i'm really lazy/tired right now), and i do have a bias, but i don't think it's quite appropriate. Oberlin isn't on the same level as Williams and U Wisconsin isn't on the same level as Williams either.</p>

272

<p>news flash: these rankings are meaningless.</p>

<p>Georgetown is #16 on WSJ's feeder ranking for top grad schools, and it is listed beneath Case Western and a whole host of less prestigious, inferior schools here. what's more important--having "superior" faculty for an undergraduate education or getting into Harvard Law School?</p>

<p>honestly, if anyone actually uses this crap to make a decision about where to go, I'd be really shocked. academic reputation, alumni networks, student body, career services, student life, and a whole bunch of other factors should be used to determine where the best school is for a given student, not simply the number of faculty members who seem to be "distinguished"--honestly, what do i care if my organic chem teacher is a nobel prize-winning researcher? it doesn't affect my class at all!</p>

<p>Oh, and I'm sure Notre Dame's faculty are just lagging way behind Ohio State, right, you know, since ND has only won like 8 Fulbright Humanities awards for faculty in the past few years (more than any other university).</p>

<p>prospies- ignore this crap. it will save you a lot of time and worry.</p>

273

<p>Uh, NO student considers Carnegie Mellon or Rice a safety. And the Top LACs are overrated.</p>

274

<p>"Top LACs are overrated"
expound. and i thought MY post was too anecdotal.
what, did they all reject you?</p>

<p>i can tell you this: for the quality of students that attend Swarthmore (where i'm headed this fall), not a single person i work with, nor anyone i have told about my new college, has heard of it except if they once lived in the philly area, let alone thought highly of it. and i live only two hours from the school!</p>

<p>and i definitely know a few students who placed Carnegie Mellon and Rice and schools of similar calbier in their match-safety zone when applying. and they were right; they were accepted but are now heading to Brown, Amherst, and Stanford. for those kids, that type of school really is a safety-match.</p>

275

<p>i should add that these kids (two females, one male) were basically admissions-perfect: two are URMs, all had nearly perfect SATs and 4.00 GPAs and meaningful ecs they devoted lots of time to. really just brilliant kids. but seriously, if they weren't admitted to Rice there'd be something weird going on.
oh and yes, one really did pick that "overrated" Amherst above Princeton and Yale.</p>

<p>basically, indiejimmy is right. disregard statistic rankings, prospective students. rankings are meaningless. pick the school that seems to be around your intellectual level, has a great program for your major, and has the environment you feel most comfortable in. and that's all that matters, not bickering over which school is better due to a 1 percentage point lead in some (often highly subjective) category.</p>

<p>i'm annoyed. i'm not coming back to this thread.</p>

276

<p>[[Oh, and I'm sure Notre Dame's faculty are just lagging way behind Ohio State, right, you know, since ND has only won like 8 Fulbright Humanities awards for faculty in the past few years (more than any other university).]]</p>

<p>Actually Notre Dame's faculty is lagging way behind that of Ohio State and all the rest of the Big Ten schools. ND's own faculty senate recognized this when they voted 34-2 to join the Big Ten in order join the Big Ten's academic consortium.</p>

<p>All of the Big Ten schools are long standing AAU members (Ohio State since 1916). Notre Dame has never been invited to join.</p>

<p>Also, Notre Dame's faculty is FAR from leading the nation in Fulbright Scholars. Ohio State's faculty won 8 last year alone as compared to 2 at Notre Dame. Over the course of this decade, the numbers are 53 for Ohio State as opposed to 17 for Notre Dame.</p>

<p>U.S</a>. Scholar Directory</p>

<p>As far as Guggenheim Scholars go, Ohio State had 3 this year tied with Harvard and among the top 15 universities in the country. Notre Dame had NONE. Over the last ten years, Ohio State has had twice as many as Notre Dame (16-8).</p>

<p>Guggenheim</a> Foundation 2008 Fellows</p>

<p>National Academy Members? Notre Dame has ZERO members of the National Academy of Sciences on faculty. Ohio State has 10. Notre Dame has ZERO. Ohio State also has 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering on faculty. Notre Dame has 2.</p>

<p>National</a> Academy of Sciences:</p>

<p>Home</a> Page</p>

<p>Notre Dame is a very, very selective undergraduate college. I don't dispute that. And while they may have built up their law and business schools to "middle of the Big Ten level" over the last decade, Notre Dame is still a weak school in terms of faculty quality, Ph.D programs and research. That's why Notre Dame's own faculty wanted so badly to join the Big Ten's Committee on Institutional Cooperation. Too bad for them, that they were overruled in favor of what was best for the football team. Again, Notre Dame is very hard to get into. The reality, however, is that once you are in Notre Dame you will NOT be exposed to as high a caliber of faculty as you would be at Ohio State or any other Big Ten university. Prospective students need to take this into consideration and decide what is most important to them.</p>

277

<p>I heart Brian Leiter.</p>

278

<p>arcadia.
I did check out your related thread and what I found there was a slightly bizarre model that, over one year's data, roughly correlated with USN's PA score using a complex algorithm that weighed several factors, most prominently selectivity. The creator of the model made no assertion that it represented "corrected" PA score, only that that model more or less predicted PA scores across the data set. The biggest variance came with the top publics, whose PA scores were consistently high but whose scores in the model came out lower due to the prominent role of selectivity in the model. To my mind, thatr's a defect in the model, not an indication that the top publics' PA scores are too high. </p>

<p>Therefore it is not at all surprising that your "recalculation" or "correction" of PA scores by substituting a model so reliant on selectivity would have the effect of downgrading the top publics (high PA scores and lower selectivity) and upgrading those highly selective privates that have comparatively lower PA scores. Essentially it just says "disregard PA scores, what matters is selectivity. Period."</p>

<p>But isn't that almost the definition of "overrated"---very popular, highly selective schools that are assumed to be good because they're so popular and selective, when in fact they are not quite so highly regarded by their peers?</p>

279

<p>
[quote]
Uh, NO student considers Carnegie Mellon or Rice a safety. And the Top LACs are overrated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some (rather misinformed) students consider Rice a safety. I do think, though, that CMU can be considered a safety for some.</p>

280

<p>Although I loved my college experience, I thought the University of Colorado would be much more academically challenging. I felt the students in the business school didn't really care about academics and there was very little class participation. With that said, I still loved my experience, but the undergrad business program is not the place for someone looking for a real academic challenge.</p>