<p>Vicissitudes: I agree with you that the top state schools are not quite up there with HYPSM. HYPSM reputations were cemented long before USNews existed. My concern is more with schools whose reputation have been made by USNews. It's difficult to know if that extra 100K per year is worth it. But USNews would have you believe otherwise.</p>
<p>IMO, the best undergraduate experiences are shaped by 4 things:
1) strength of student body;
2) size/nature of classroom;
3) quality/nature of the teaching; and
4) institutional resources and a willingness to use them to support undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Public universities suffer on three of these four metrics (1, 2, 4) and this is due almost exclusively to their size and the averages that result when comparatively larger numbers are involved. Still, public universities probably benefit more than the privates in the actual USNWR methodology, specifically:</p>
<ol>
<li> Peer Assessment scores (25% of the USNWR score) tend to favor schools with large graduate programs. This is more often the case with the publics than the privates and their relative PAs will reflect this for similarly ranked institutions.</li>
<li> 6-year graduation rates (16%), rather than 4 years or in combination with a 4-year measurement, are used to grade the effectiveness of getting the students through their undergraduate experience.</li>
<li> Top 10% students measurement (6%) clearly favors schools which commonly have a legislative requirement to take in-state students and this is a highly used metric for admission of in-state students</li>
<li> Low weight given to admit rates (1.5%) as publics (outside of UCs) have comparatively higher acceptance levels than top-ranked privates</li>
</ol>
<p>The one obvious USNWR variable that hurts publics is Alumni Giving which is weighted at 5% of the survey.</p>
<p>Well, I know for a fact about the education at UT - as there is currently a summer term I have visited (if anything you would think that would be more personal) - my friends attend, I have visited them....I also here bad things about UVA - I cant see Michigan or Wisconsin or UNC etc. being much better if UVA and UT are large and impersonal</p>
<p>of course they are large and what kind of classes were u attending. Im guessing they were intro courses which ive heard tend to be impersonal at every school. One you get into higher classes the attention will become more personal. Also, if ur looking for really personal attention like ud find at a small to medium high school, i doubt ull find it at any colleges, at least frosh year, except maybe at some lacs. footballyus, u said earlier that u think HYPS will be more personal. Harvard is know for not focusing at all on undergrads and I doubt ull get much more personalized attention at any of these schools. These schools are also all fairly large. If ur looking for small and personal i think the only place ur really going to find it is at the lacs, not in the ivys.</p>
<p>footbally: The enrollment population at the schools you just mentioned vary widely. UT/Austin has about 40,000 undergraduates. Compare that to ~14,000 at UVA and less than less than 17,000 at UNC. I don't know about Michigan or Wisconsin. Nevertheless, a larger school can be just as personal or impersonal as you want it. </p>
<p>If you took a summer course (as a just-graduated high school senior) at UT, it probably was impersonal to you. You're not going there, so you have no stake or interest in putting any effort into your experience there. Many students thrive at larger schools, love the depth and breadth of what's offered, on all levels, as well as the diversity, and don't find them impersonal at all. They would probably find a small LAC suffocating.</p>
<p>At any rate, regarding class sizes, this is from the UNC-CH website: </p>
<p>50% of classes have 20 or fewer students
71.3% of classes have fewer than 30 students
25% of undergraduates participate in research</p>
<p>As patsandheels stated, intro courses may be large, but that's mostly true everywhere except for LACs. And if your standardized test scores and AP/IB exam scores are high enough, you can probably place out of most large intro courses. Many publics also have smaller honors courses. </p>
<p>Again, if always having 10 people or less in your classes is of utmost importance to you, you definitely need to be at a small LAC. Good luck.</p>
<p>I'd like to return to the original question of whether publics should be ranked separately. The publics are almost never going to win in any clash involving things like class size or resources dedicated to staffing and resources related to undergraduate teaching. I think most would agree that small class sizes are preferable to large class sizes. Given their size and often more limited financial resources, publics (and religiously affiliated schools) will consistently be at a disadvantage to the well funded privates. As a result, any ranking that values this highly should probably separate out the publics. </p>
<p>It seems more than ever before, money is such a big part of today's world and drives how the public views success in a variety of industries. College is no exception and publics seem increasingly squeezed by their relative declining supply of resources while the top privates get stronger and stronger. I'm not saying that this is right, but to expect otherwise is probably na</p>
<p>Pomona average class size - 14 students.
University of Michigan - 26 students.</p>
<p>Hmmmmmmmmmmm...</p>
<p>UM 5000 classes--Pomona maybe 1000. UM 200 majors Pomona--50?
UM Liberal arts, engineering, education, business, architecture, fine arts, etc</p>
<p>Pomona--Liberal arts only</p>
<p>HMmmmmmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>
[quote]
Still, public universities probably benefit more than the privates in the actual USNWR methodology
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if this is so, it makes one wonder why the top publics aren't ranked higher. It seems to me you'd have to start with the premise that they're pretty shoddy institutions, if they can benefit more than private colleges and still only climb so far. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. 6-year graduation rates (16%), rather than 4 years or in combination with a 4-year measurement, are used to grade the effectiveness of getting the students through their undergraduate experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We could measure the extent to which the 6-year is more advantageous to publics by looking at the typical gain in grad rates for publics vs. privates when you move from 4-yr to 6-yr. I don't have the time to do that, but someone could. You'd have to make sure you accompanied this with some information about the proportion of students in programs that take more than 4 years. "Effectiveness" has little to do with it when licensure and other requirements dictate more than 8 semesters of study.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Top 10% students measurement (6%) clearly favors schools which commonly have a legislative requirement to take in-state students and this is a highly used metric for admission of in-state students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean by "highly-used"? That may be a more subjective assessment of the number who do--can you share the hard numbers?</p>
<p>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!</p>
<p>hawkette: You consistently make blanket statements for all publics. Really, publics vary so much you can't say that "publics are this" or "publics are that."</p>
<p>Average class size is such a horrible judge of academic strength of a school.</p>
<p>Kyledavid80,
I’m sure you’re right that not all publics are the same, but help me understand what I said that you found inaccurate or objectionable. I’m actually trying to argue for the publics here, but in a way that takes some objective data into consideration and considers how this affects the rankings outcome. I don’t think that they should be measured separately because I think it would be interpreted as a statement that they can’t compete with the privates and I don’t believe that. They can and there are terrific students coming out of public universities every year and from many unlikely and lower ranked universities. </p>
<p>kk19131,
Class size relates not to academic quality, but to the environment in which the learning is done. Yes, I know that good professors can make a large class “good” and poor professors can make a small class “bad.” I think the best is to have good professors and small classes and in an interactive environment with the professor and with other bright, motivated students. Class size can and usually does have a major impact on the quality of the undergraduate classroom experience. </p>
<p>hoedown,
Following are 4-year graduation rates from USNWR for their Top 100 List for some selected National Universities. I also provided the 4-year data for some schools that did not make the Top 100 and their data is drawn from the CDS of each school. I don’t know if the schools make the determination of a student’s study path in reporting the four-year data. Maybe you can enlighten me on this.</p>
<p>92% Columbia
90% Princeton
90% Yale
88% BC
88% Georgetown
88% Notre Dame
87% Duke
87% Harvard
87% U Penn
85% Northwestern
85% U Chicago
84% Brandeis
84% Cornell
84% Dartmouth
84% Emory
84% Tufts
84% U Virginia
83% Brown
83% Caltech
83% Vanderbilt
82% MIT
82% Wash U
81% W&M
81% J Hopkins
78% W Forest
76% Rice
76% Stanford</p>
<p>Selected schools not in the USNWR Top 100 for 4-year Graduation Rate</p>
<p>58% UC Berk
67% Carn Mellon
67% U Michigan
57% UCLA
61% USC
65% U NC
78% Wake</p>
<p>"Class size relates not to academic quality, but to the environment in which the learning is done."</p>
<p>-True. Thus, small classes can, for some people (like me), be a hindrance to their learning. </p>
<p>"I think the best is to have good professors and small classes and in an interactive environment with the professor and with other bright, motivated students."</p>
<p>-Well of course the 'best' situation would involve having good professors... But honestly, there are certain classes wherein professors need simply to lecture, wherein using class time for questions and discussion would cause both the students and professor to be less productive- an outcome that is good neither for the professor nor the students. Larger classes, in many schools, also tend to have discussion sections, so interaction with one's peers can also occur in these settings- albeit not directly inside the lecture hall.</p>
<p>"Class size can and usually does have a major impact on the quality of the undergraduate classroom experience."</p>
<p>-Yet again - true. But for people to assert that smaller = better in terms of class size, it's just not always the case.</p>
<p>And maybe I'm missing the point, but, what do 4-year graduation rates matter?</p>
<p>kk,
I’ll just disagree with you on the class size issue. I think it is a critical part of the learning environment and frankly, I’m a little surprised that you or anyone would argue against smaller classes. </p>
<p>Re the 4-year graduation rates, I think that this is an underrated consideration and has as much or more validity in my mind as Freshman Retention (now 4% of the USNWR weight). College costs a heckuva lot of money these days and families are burdened with more and more debt over longer periods of time. The quicker that a student can fulfill the requirements, the sooner they get that coveted diploma, and the sooner they can stop paying out and start earning money (or going on to graduate school). For example, if a student is unable to get the courses that he/she needs in order to graduate on time, then this is a problem. I have read and heard about this happening at several of the UCs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, studies have shown that students who were admitted to elite private schools but chose to attend public schools did just as well as their private school counterparts. Clearly, the education is not inferior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As have stated before regarding this subject, these "studies" have a huge problem with self-selection. In short, people don't just decide to turn down elite private schools for public schools randomly. They do so for a reason. Hence, these studies are not controlled and cannot therefore be treated as valid experiments. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think Williams and Mary was ever on par with HYPS
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps up until the early 1800's, W&M was comparable to HYP (but not obviously to S as S hadn't even been founded yet). But certainly not since then. After all, in the late 1800's, W&M actually went bankrupt and closed for several years. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Vicissitudes: I agree with you that the top state schools are not quite up there with HYPSM. HYPSM reputations were cemented long before USNews existed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Berkeley's reputation was certainly 'cemented' before Stanford's was, and arguably also before MIT's was. Let's keep in mind that both Berkeley and MIT were founded at almost the same time (Berkeley is 3 years younger than MIT), and both were founded decades before Stanford was. Both Stanford and MIT experienced financial difficulties in their early years, while Berkeley never did, for it enjoyed the largesse of the early California state governments. In fact, early Stanford administrators shuddered at the prospect of having to compete in the shadow of that 'behemoth' across the Bay. MIT's rise to superstar status occurred during WW2 is a direct result of its deep ties to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex, and Stanford rose in symbiotic lockstep with Silicon Valley, which didn't even truly exist until perhaps the 1950's, and didn't even receive its moniker until 1971.<br>
To put it in perspective, Berkeley was winning Nobel Prizes before MIT did. By the time Stanford won its first Nobel (in 1952), Berkeley had already won 6. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Some comparisons can certainly be made based on available data; however, to compare educational experiences based on individual anecdotes; comments by high school students who have never been to university; and "word of mouth from students who attend these schools," and consider that solid data-- well, I think that might be somewhat interesting to hear, but ultimately worthless information when determining what offers the superior "educational experience."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The information is incomplete to be sure, but I would hardly call it 'worthless'. It's the best data we can get because surely you would agree that nobody can actually attend every single school in the country. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As vicissitudes was saying, some of the supposedly "undergrad focused" schools are actually not all that focused on undergrad. Harvard, based on all the objective statistics, comes in at #2. That's because it has a low student:faculty ratio, high grad rate, high retention rate, great resources, small classes (mostly), and is very selective. Yet at the same time, Harvard is very often cited as caring little about its undergrads and more about its grad students (I can't even count how many times I've heard this, even from students at Harvard). So even there, the US News ranking is flawed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anybody is asserting that USNews is perfect. No ranking is. Just like no scientific instrument is perfect. The real question is, what better ranking system is out there? What else are you going to use? Other than perhaps RP (which examines a different metric entirely), I can franky think of nothing better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Still, I would argue against the publics being ranked separately because this could (would?) send the wrong signal to the public, ie, that the publics can't cut it in comparison to the privates and thus need their own, separate and protected, ranking. This could cause a loss of some of the prestige that the publics retain (which is likely due to their strong research records which are truly more grad student oriented). This would be a heavy price to pay and could hasten their decline in the eyes of the public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would agree with this.</p>
<p>I would also add that I think they should not be separated for the single reason that students don't separate them. After all, most candidates don't consider only private schools or only public schools. They usually consider a mix and hence are inherently comparing public vs. private schools. The rankings should do the same for them to provide value. </p>
<p>For the same reason, I have always disagreed with the notion the LAC's and universities should be separated, because again, many candidates are considering a mix of LAC's and universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
footbally: How many public universities have you attended as an undergraduate? How many liberal arts colleges? And what do you really know of HYPS? Do tell
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
medha: And how many public universities have you attended? I'd love to know how you can make a blanket statement like that without having attended any public universities (or any university or college, for that matter--based on your past posts). You're simply regurgitating nonsense that you hear; just like footbally above, you have no idea what you're talking about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would turn the question around, jack: how many have YOU attended? How do you know that these guys don't know what they're talking about? </p>
<p>
[quote]
i agree with jack on this. How does anyone know what its like at all these universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then according to that logic, we shouldn't bother with any rankings at all, because clearly nobody can actually attend every single school in the country. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ive also heard that harvard pays almost no attention to undergrads, i dont know this its just what ive heard
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I would hardly say that they pay "almost no attention to undergrads", and certainly not relative to a public school. If nothing else, at least Harvard boasts a graduation rate that is higher than that of any public school. That seems to be a strong mark in favor of Harvard's undergraduate experience, relative to that at public schools. Why can't public schools graduate more of their students?</p>
<p>"I think it is a critical part of the learning environment and frankly, I’m a little surprised that you or anyone would argue against smaller classes."</p>
<p>-I'm not arguing "against" smaller classes. What I am arguing, however, is that some student just don't function well in small class settings; and that, some classes often require that a professor present a certain amount of information to his students, and thus using up lecture time for discussion would be counter-productive. An introduction class can have 10 students or 100, but if a professor has to cover X number of topics, having fewer students and more discussion doesn't really make much sense. </p>
<p>While I do believe that certain types of classes, like languages, require smaller sizes for effectiveness, it just doesn't make much sense to me to say that smaller classes are just 'naturally' better than larger ones, especially with the diverse nature of students/professors/and courses.</p>
<p>Hawk--if you do a little digging you will find some name privates have class caps and problems with getting classes too. Not just a publics issue.
In many classes an interactive approach just slows things down so a few can hear themselves babble or try to make the Prof look stupid. Way Overrated.</p>