<p>Afan, you are correct, the engineering profs did speak about individuals they knew at other schools but were reticent about the quality of undergrad education. Some of those I spoke with, titled Dean of Undergrad educ in engineering etc had backgrounds in other subjects. They were merely administrators in engineering depts: dean of students, coordin of undergrad studies ,etc. I spoke with a variety of individuals. I spoke with young faculty and old ones (looked at websites for emeritus profs, associates, assistant, etc etc) also spoke with those who had undergrad degrees from UK , etc to get a flavor. All I am saying is that whilst they talked of peer institutions and mentioned that program XYZ is good etc they did not have intimate knowledge of undergrad teaching and classroom quality.</p>
<p>NRC is highly regarded. Can you post the NRC data again please?</p>
<p>This site lets one use the data to generate customized rankings based on numerous characteristics of the departments. There is no single "one size fits all" ranking.</p>
<p>Ramaswami, as you relate more about these conversations, I am struck by how different they seem from how you first characterised them: </p>
<p>
[quote]
What struck me was their complete ignorance about their peer institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't sound completely ignorant. And the way you're now describing their limitations, I don't understand how those are the basis for declaring the NRC rankings rubbish. There may be other reasons to question the NRC findings, but it's not clear to me why their reticence to discuss undergrad education is one of them.</p>
<p>For the benefit of others who may not know the study as well as you do, the survey was called "The National Survey of Graduate Faculty" and was specifically geared towards research-doctorate programs alone. Furthermore, the survey wouldn't have gone to some of the people you're describing as having disappointed you with their knowledge. It went to faculty in research-doctorate programs alone, not staff. The heading above the five evaluative questions for institutions was "ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS." Each of the five questions also offered the option of "little or no familiarity" or "Don't know well enough to evaluate," which give faculty who also don't know the graduate program an "out" for every single item.</p>
<p>hoedown, I am not one of those questioning the NRC study. I do not even know the NRC study; all I know is that the NRC is a highly reputable body. You are confusing me with someone else. Initially, I was very harsh, "completely ignorant" etc. As I recall the conversations and go over my notes, I must amend my statement to say they were not very knowledgeable about undergrad teaching quality.</p>
<p>I appreciate your amending your earlier comment about what they knew. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not one of those questioning the NRC study. I do not even know the NRC study
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it wasn't someone else I was mixing you up with, but perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. My comments about the NRC came from your post, which I think was #185 in this thread:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Peer Assessment is junk incl NRC. I know of NRC, it is an arm of the National Academy.
<p>
[quote]
I believe the NRC will be releasing its first revised rankings in over a decade later this year. It should be interesting to see the results.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep. They're expected to be published December 2007.</p>
<p>It should be interesting, but, as hoedown notes, it is an evaluation of research doctoral programs, not undergraduate programs. Factors that make for excellent programs at these different levels may not be the same. If they follow the previous model, the results will focus on the research reputations of the faculty, sources of funding for faculty and graduate students, grad student placement, time to degree, size of program, and other factors that do not address how well a department does teaching intro and upper level undergraduates.</p>
<p>"While a large endowment is useful for funding the things you mentioned, it does not provide an actual picture of the quality of education offered at various universities. Universities with extensive research options will obviously require larger portions of their endowments to be directed to research, which does not always improve the quality of an undergraduate education. Beyond the first question of where do we direct this money (hiring the best researchers and building labs, hiring excellent lecturers, building a stadium to seat 100,000, etc.) is how effectively the money is used in each area.
(By the way, as a student on one of the universities that made your list of highest per student endowments, I'm not just whining because my university doesn't come out well in under your ranking system.)"</p>
<p>Actually most research funding comes from outside sources which is why it is so competitive to get. Only a handful of the richest schools spend significant amounts of their own money on research. Outside research funding also has an allowance for overhead costs to fund the rest of the univerisity operations. This can amount to many millions of dollars that the U can spend on other operations--like undergrad education.</p>
<p>Very, very few of even the wealthiest colleges and universities are using their endowments where they could do the most good: making their institutions truly accessible to middle-class families, folks with more than two kids, who make less than $100K a year per household. That's why most elite student bodies are divided up pretty much between the very poor and the very rich.</p>
<p>They rarely use endowment income to pay for research operating costs, but they frequently use it to support infrastructure. Libraries, labs, and huge bureaucracies are required, and most grants do not cover the full costs.</p>
<p>I don't know of any reliable source for this information. The National Survey of Student Engagement promotes some criteria, but even here, the evidence that students who do what they advocate end up better educated is slim. The criteria are also weighted towards traditional liberal arts, and do not translate well to engineering, science, or technical degrees.</p>
<p>One could try to compare similar colleges on output measures- % graduates who get advanced degrees, mean incomes, professional achievements,... but this data is hard to come by. </p>
<p>One could compare scores on standard tests MCAT, LSAT, GRE. After normalizing for admission SAT scores, these would be a good test of how much those who took the tests had learned in college about the subjects included on these exams. However, lots of people don't take the exams, even at elite colleges where most students get advanced degrees. So differences in scores across colleges could be dominated by selection for who took the exam, rather than differences in educational attainment.</p>
<p>Absent any of the above, people are left with opinion, and no data.</p>
<p>From Rama's comments, note how experts in engineering education felt poorly prepared to comment on the quality of undergraduate education at even a small number of peer institutions. The faculty members understood that even knowing how well they were doing at home would require a careful study.</p>
<p>It always amuses me when people with little or no expertise in higher education can make fine distinctions about the quality of education at college A vs B, perhaps never having so much as visited either.</p>
<p>Libraries certainly serve all students and labs are more of a toss-up and that cost comes out of capital funds which are usually either from the state for publics or raised for the purpose for publics and privates alike. Yes there are bureaucratic costs but not anywhere near the $200 Million or so in cost recovery at major research u's.</p>
<p>hoedown, what I meant was all peer assessment is probably worthless , not that the NRC is worthless. I would be skeptical about peer assessment by whomsoever it is done. Thanks for pointing out my comment, I did not write it with care.</p>
<p>Operating costs for the research enterprise can be huge, and not fully covered by cost recovery. Even federal grants have caps on what can be charged, and foundation money usually has much less, if any, overhead support.</p>
<p>It appears that Michigan, like most universities, would LIKE to get full cost recovery on every grant. Like most universities, the only sources that come close are certain federal grants, and commercial collaborations. Even the federal rates are subject to painfully complex calculations, and end up with a negotiated rate. This need not truly recover at 100%. Foundations almost never pay at these rates. Many universities limit the ability of faculty to accept grants with low overheads. Others merely discourage it, or require permission each time someone proposes to do it.</p>