<p>mmm, I think Princeton hockey calls Cornell their rivals.</p>
<p>^^Oh also, they had the same spring break as us last year so we were rivals fighting for a spot on the Miami beach. Luckily, we got out there first =P</p>
<p>Cornell is a fabulous research university. After HYP, it is the best Ivy League university. For undergraduate education, even, I would rank Cornell fifth in the Ivy League after HYP and Dartmouth. Cornell has many programs that are equal to or better than Princeton's. </p>
<p>And in the Washington Monthly rankings, Cornell was in the top 10 whereas Princeton didn't make the top 40.</p>
<p>The Washington Monthly rankings are designed to be "turning the U.S. News rankings upside down." It is designed to rank which colleges do the most for the U.S. Here is their methodology: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html</a></p>
<p>"By devising a set of criteria different from those of other college guides, we arrived at sharply different results. Top schools sank, and medium schools rose. For instance, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 48th on the U.S News list, takes third place on our list, while Princeton, first on the U.S. News list, takes 43rd on ours. In short, Pennsylvania State, measured on our terms--by the yardstick of fostering research, national service and social mobility--does a lot more for the country than Princeton. </p>
<p>"Don't get us wrong. We're not saying Princeton isn't a superb school. It employs many of the nation's finest minds, and its philosophy department is widely considered the best in the country. Its eating clubs, or whatever they're called, are surely unmatched. Princeton may be a great destination for your tuition dollars, all 31,450 of them, not including room or board. But what if it's a lousy destination for your tax dollars? Each year, Princeton receives millions of dollars in federal research grants. Does it deserve them? What has Princeton done for us lately? This is the only guide that tries to tell you. That, and a bit more." </p>
<p>And here are their rankings: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html</a></p>
<p>Am I wrong, or are the WM rankings slyly making a -- not entirely misguided -- observation that Princeton is not exactly known for its altruism? And that therefore it isn't the best destination for our tax dollars?</p>
<p>Could it be the fallout from UChicago alum David Brooks's famous "Organization Kid" essay, which lambasted Princeton for its mindless, community-ignoring, money-obsessed drone of a student body? And which was followed up later by his article called "Organization Kid Revisited", which talked about how Yale was basically the opposite?</p>
<p>If this is the case, WM has some nerve.</p>
<p>DAVID BROOKS? You're going to cite him in your argument!? Have you READ any of his articles? He doesn't know anything.</p>
<p>Quem fumas?</p>
<p>The Washington Monthly ratings put <em>SOUTH</em> <em>CAROLINA</em> <em>STATE</em> at number 9 (ahead of seven Ivies) . Hopefully that alone should prove the absurd nature of those ratings. To the extent that they purport to measure the degree to which colleges have a "committment to public service", well, I still disagree with them but at least they're trying. But to take these as a serious measure of academic quality or the undergraduate experience is utter lunacy. </p>
<p>Cornell ain't BAD but it's not exactly the fourth best Ivy. Its SAT average is the lowest in the league, its classes are the biggest, and the % of top-tenth students is the worst.</p>
<p>PosterX, that is a total distortion of Brooks's article, in which his basic complaint was that Princeton students were too hardworking and not rebellious enough. He specifically stated in it that he did not find these "leaders-in-training" to be "money-mad" but instead more career conscious and goal oriented than he expected. He stated later on that students at Princeton were not any different from those at Yale or other top schools in this regard. <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2002/11/08/news/6289.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2002/11/08/news/6289.shtml</a></p>
<p>Here's the original article: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200104/brooks%5B/url%5D">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200104/brooks</a></p>
<p>And, as others have noted, Brooks's comments on most topics are highly impressionistic.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree, but my point was that WM may have misinterpreted the article as well. That said, I think there was probably some reason why David Brooks singled out Princeton for "Organization Kid," and then singled out Yale for the article about his revised impressions, "Organization Kid Revisited" (which you didn't post a link to).</p>
<p>Also, I think that all things considered, Cornell is the fourth best Ivy. It simply has a range and excellence of programs that are simply not found at any other Ivy except HYP. And in terms of selectivity, Cornell is less selective on average because it is so large, among other reasons. But if you look at the best students at Cornell, you could make the argument that the top 10% of Cornell students are better than the top 10% of students at Penn, Brown, Dartmouth or Columbia.</p>
<p>Lol, unless Im mistaken, a large factor in the WM rankings include ROTC enrollment? Hmm, Princeton has like 5 students I believe. Im surprised it even broke the top 50!</p>
<p>PosterX, Brooks's kids went to Yale. End of story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And in terms of selectivity, Cornell is less selective on average because it is so large, among other reasons. But if you look at the best students at Cornell, you could make the argument that the top 10% of Cornell students are better than the top 10% of students at Penn, Brown, Dartmouth or Columbia.
[/quote]
Right, the same could be said of UMich, but who makes that argument?</p>
<p>Actually, I don't think the same could be said of UMich.</p>
<p>Look at TASPers, for example. After H/Y, the top destinations per capita are Swarthmore and Cornell. Cornell also has historically attracted the most Intel STS finalists over the past 10 years, after Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Princeton and Stanford. Michigan has gotten very few, if any.</p>
<p>PosterX, really, your frantic efforts to denigrate all schools other than Yale are (or should be) an embarrassment to Yale alumni. Frankly, Im a little surprised to see your vigorous efforts over here. I would have anticipated Harvard boosters attempts to dismiss the USNWR rankings since Harvard dropped to second in this most recent survey, but Yales position is unchanged. Why all the angst?</p>
<p>Let me begin by stating that I dont see a great deal of difference in terms of educational quality among any of the schools in the top tier of this ranking. As a Princeton alumnus Im pleased to see my alma mater #1 but I wont be committing hara-kiri if it drops a few places at some time in the future.</p>
<p>Still, your completely unsupported claims are tiring. </p>
<p>Would you provide us with evidence that the USNWR statistics are the work of Princeton alumni doing its [USNWRs] number crunching as you put it? The statistics are almost entirely self-reported by the schools. In only a minority of cases where the institutions refuse to report does USNWR gather its own information from other sources. </p>
<p>You also state that USNWR uses incorrect data and that its results are therefore invalid. While I have found some very minor mistakes in their data, I dont think they are huge. You would have to provide specific evidence to show that the data are incorrect in a significant way and I would encourage you to report such mistakes to USNWR.</p>
<p>Washington Monthlys rankings are curious indeed. Enough has probably been said about these already. I would only note that they are measuring something very different in those rankings. WM is not attempting to assess the quality of education at these schools. It is apparently attempting to rank them on the basis of social contributions. If you look closely at the methodology youll see that it heavily favors schools with large graduate schools and large government contracts as well as schools with large ROTC units. None of the Ivy League schools do particularly well if these are the criteria but those with the largest graduate schools conducting government research do better. </p>
<p>To quote from the WM website, two thirds of a schools research score is based on the total amount of an institution's research spending [and] the number of PhDs awarded by the university in the sciences and engineering. Youll note that these two numbers arent adjusted for the total size of the University. The result is that large schools with large graduate programs and huge government contracts in the sciences (particularly those with medical schools that almost always have large government contracts) are at the top of the rankings. Due to their size, these schools have far larger research budgets and grant far more PhDs. Public universities typically get the lions share of government research funding and youll note that almost all of the top schools in this survey are large public institutions.</p>
<p>Finally, your comment that Princeton's selectivity has been dropping like a rock in recent years is too absurd to call for a refutation. </p>
<p>Really, PosterX, since you rarely provide any credible evidence to support your generally incredible claims, its almost a waste of time to respond.</p>
<p>Let's take this apart piece by piece:</p>
<p>"Look at TASPers, for example. After H/Y, the top destinations per capita are Swarthmore and Cornell."
Data? If it is true, which I doubt, it's because of the "TASP House" at Cornell. </p>
<p>"Cornell also has historically attracted the most Intel STS finalists over the past 10 years, after Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Princeton and Stanford. Michigan has gotten very few, if any."
I don't think that's true either. I'm guesing that Columbia does better than Cornell. </p>
<p>Frankly, posterX, your stringent and incorrect defense of Cornell leads me to believe that you are a Yale reject and Cornell matriculant with some sort of complex, or you just have some weird love for Cornell.</p>
<p>And finally, in regards to Ptongrad, who stated: "Would you provide us with evidence that the USNWR statistics are the work of Princeton alumni doing its [USNWRs] number crunching as you put it? The statistics are almost entirely self-reported by the schools."
PosterX's, and my, assertion is that it is not the DATA that matter, but what the data IS. "Faculty resources" or "selectivity" are arbitrary categories probably created with a bias in mind.</p>
<p>PosterX, since TASP is hosted at Cornell it's not terribly surprising that a lot of TASPers go there. And as it is the largest Ivy by enrollment a decent absolute number of Intel finalists go there. You might as well say that Oklahoma State is better than most Ivies because of the number of Merit Scholars it enrolls.</p>
<p>(This is the same reason that your data about Yale having the most alums at Yale Law isn't terribly persuasive. Harvard has the most at Harvard Law and I'll bet Stanford does at Stanford Law.)</p>
<p>Now, there's nothing wrong with liking some school more than others - Yale is essentially equal to Princeton and some say it's better (though I beg to differ). But if you make absurd arguments you only undermine your chosen schools. There's a lot to be said for Yale, but saying, as you often do, that New Haven is a better place to live than Princeton sure isn't one of them.</p>
<p>Zephyr, I'm pretty sure that Yale ranks first in the USNews selectivity rankings so saying that the criteria are chosen by Princeton alums to make us number one doesn't really hold water.</p>
<p>Evidence has been provided on other threads for all of my assertions, numerous times. In terms of the selectivity statement, just look at a chart of the number of applicants per spot in the entering class between 1998 and 2006 for HYP. Think of it as a stock chart. You will see Yale rising like Microsoft during the technology stock boom, Harvard rising like Chevron or some other good blue chip, and Princeton stagnating like an embattled dinosaur. The same trend would hold if you charted the % of the class who are NMSC-Sponsored National Merit Scholars, which I have tracked over time, and probably other measures as well. Care to offer an explanation for this striking tend? BTW, MIT and Penn would also be doing very well if they were plotted on the chart.</p>
<p>In terms of the USNWR data being invalid, complaints have been made numerous times. The way USNWR calculates its student to faculty ratios has nothing to do with the actual ratio of teaching professors to students in their classes, particularly at universities where faculty members in the graduate and professional schools participate in the undergraduate programs. USNWR will not change, presumably because its editors went to Princeton and don't want to see it fall, especially in light of the school's stagnant selectivity trend.</p>
<p>All this said of course, I have no doubt that Princeton is one of the best undergraduate colleges in the country - in terms of overall educational quality, I would place it in a super-elite group with Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Yale, Caltech, Wellesley and Amherst.</p>
<p>I don't know about the rest of the editors, but Mort Zuckerman, the editor in chief of US News, is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Wharton. </p>
<p>Thankfully, he earned his BA at McGill. If the magazine ever decided to make an exception and include Canadian schools, we'll know why.</p>
<p>Oh my, where to start?</p>
<p>PosterX, if, as you say, [e]vidence has been provided on other threads for all of my assertions, numerous times then I assume it will be easy for you to provide the links to outside information sources for the specific claims youve made in this thread. We all look forward to seeing them.</p>
<p>You seem to have some conspiracy theory about the USNWR rankings based on the backgrounds of the editors. No doubt there are Princeton alumni working at USNWR. I suspect there are also many alumni of all Princetons competitors, including Yale. However, the gathering and interpreting of the data for USNWRs college ranking is done by Mr. Robert J. Morse, the director of data research head of the America 's Best Colleges and America 's Best Graduate Schools ranking projects. Mr. Morse has a B.A. in economics from the University of Cincinnati and an M.B.A. in finance from Michigan State University. (see: <a href="http://csue.msu.edu/conf2005/bio-morse.asp%5B/url%5D">http://csue.msu.edu/conf2005/bio-morse.asp</a>) </p>
<p>If you would like to provide some evidence for your rather amazing claim that student to faculty ratios has nothing to do with the actual ratio of teaching professors to students in their classes, particularly at universities where faculty members in the graduate and professional schools participate in the undergraduate programs I would be pleased to see it. In fact, the bias you are claiming is specifically excluded by USNWR. They are getting their information from the Common Data Set. On page 23 of that form, youll see that the calculation for student/faculty ratios is set out in very specific terms. (see: <a href="http://registrar1.princeton.edu/data/common/cds2005.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://registrar1.princeton.edu/data/common/cds2005.pdf</a> ) Graduate and professional school faculty ARE included in the calculations as long as they teach at least one course. This actually favors schools with large professional programs such as Yale. </p>
<p>By the way, the student/faculty ratio accounts for a whopping 1% of the final score (5% of the faculty resources rating which itself accounts for 20% of the final score). (see: <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php</a> )</p>
<p>Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the increase in applicants at Yale has been some phenomenon exclusive to Yale. Actually, it was a result more of the switch from early decision to early action and the same rapid growth in applications was seen at Brown which also made the switch. Here are the actual numbers for applicants starting from one year prior to the switch. Some may be slightly off as I had to gather them piecemeal from campus publications.</p>
<p>Year beginning fall of 2002----Princeton ( 15,725 )----Yale ( 17,731 )
Year beginning fall of 2003----Princeton ( 13,659 )----Yale ( 19,674 ) Yale switched to SCEA<br>
Year beginning fall of 2004----Princeton ( 16,077 )----Yale ( 19,430 )
Year beginning fall of 2005----Princeton ( 17,478 )----Yale ( 20,903 )</p>
<p>With the less restrictive SCEA policy, Yales applications increased significantly and the surge was in early applications, not in the regular decision pool. The same effect was seen at Brown. In fact, the year Yale switched, there was a 55% increase in early applications with little change in regular decision applications.</p>
<p>From the Yale Daily News regarding the 55% increase in SCEA applications:</p>
<p>With 4,046 early applications, that means there are roughly 15,500 regular applications, about a 2.5 percent increase in regular applications from last year. Early applications, on the other hand, rose 55 percent this year, accounting for much of the rise in total applications. Admissions officials and high school college counselors have attributed drastic increases in early applications to decisions by some universities -- including Yale -- to change from binding Early Decision programs to nonbinding single-choice Early Action programs.</p>
<p>The rise in applications at Brown was even greater than that at Yale. Harvard experienced a similar significant increase (in the 20% range) when they (for one year, I believe) allowed students applying early decision to other schools to apply early action to Harvard. Were Princeton to switch to SCEA its rise in total applications would almost certainly be similar.</p>
<p>USNWR has now updated its site:</p>