<p>Yes, i've been to that site and checked out their rankings.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>publics arn't overrated by peer assesment. I think the problem lies in the fact that most of you think that public schools suck, and private schools must be better. obviously that isn't the case. public schools can offer just as good an education as many privates, and the best public schools can offer an education on par with the very best privates. this is the reason why public schools you mentioned (iowa, forida a&m, etc.) can have peer assesment scores the same as some private schools you have mentioned (tufts, nyu, wake). However, the problem arises in the other criteria in the methodogy.</p>
<p>In most of the other areas that usnews ranks in, privates have an advantage. on a whole privates are more selective because they can just take the best - and not have to take a certain % from their home state. Monetarily wise, the vast majority of public schools don't have huge endowments and are pidgeon holed into what the state gives. Most publics don't have high alumni giving rates, because many students went there because it was their only viable option, not because they were in love with it. Vast majority of public schools can't pay their faculty as much as equivalent private schools.</p>
<p>So saying publics are "overrated" in peer assesment doesn't make sense. Its simply a "what do you think of this school" question posed to university deans/presidents. They obviously are not 16 year old kids who assume public schools are inferior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so you think tufts = ohio state? even your buddy a2wolves says the overrated peer assessment MIGHT be because of athletics of state universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying Tufts = Ohio State. I'm saying, show me something that says Tufts is so much better than Ohio State. Right now you're just assuming that Tufts is better because...I'm not really sure. Maybe it's higher ranked (US News skews towards privates) or it's more prestigious. Show me something that says Tufts deserves a better score.</p>
<p>Or maybe you're just inherently biased against public schools and don't think they are as good. Or maybe you just want to see public schools drop even lower in rankings so NYU will rise. Look, Stern is one of the best business schools in the country, but NYU as a whole is still not there. If you really think NYU (as a whole) is that great, why not provide us with something other than "I think these publics such and should be ranked lower."</p>
<p>By the way, why don't you point me to the post in this thread in which a2wolves has said that. Give me the post number in which s/he said that peer assessment could be higher because of athletics.</p>
<p>Edit: Okay, it was in another thread. And I don't agree with it.</p>
<p>Vici: I definitely agree with your approach but I think it is pretty clear Tufts is somewhat better than Ohio State based on percent in the top 10% and I think a 1400 avg SAT (V/M) for Tufts? I dont' know OSU's but I doubt it approaches those numbers. Tufts is sometimes "invisible" to the CC population and not many know a lot about it but just by checking out the student profiles you can see a major difference. The student body at Tufts are of a higher quality and its faculty is better. </p>
<p>Perhaps Worldband would know more about Tufts to help provide some information but I dont' think even the most unbiased elite in higher education would rank Tufts and OSU together.</p>
<p>UCs ranked unusually high? Like which ones?</p>
<p>It seems like the only common argument here is that private schools such Tufts, Brandeis, Tulane, Wake Forest, blah blah are great solely because they're private schools.</p>
<p>Well, that could be because Tufts has about 5,000 undergraduates while Ohio State has 36,000. Publics tend to have more undergraduates, and so the average SAT score tend to go down when you are less selective.</p>
<p>I don't think Tufts is invisible to the CC population. In a thread I started a few months ago about which university should be added to CC's top universities, it was about 10 pages and almost everyone said "Tufts." If anything, I think Ohio State is more invisible.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm in no way saying that Tufts is a worse school, or that they are equal. I just don't like how Sternman87 goes to all these threads and talks as if Tufts > Ohio State is a fact without actually giving me any evidence. At least you cited SAT scores and top 10% of the class.</p>
<p>"Anyway, I'm in no way saying that Tufts is a worse school, or that they are equal. I just don't like how Sternman87 goes to all these threads and talks as if Tufts > Ohio State is a fact without actually giving me any evidence. At least you cited SAT scores and top 10% of the class."</p>
<p>Agreed, he is a bit...unconventional in his methods :)</p>
<p>I know that public schools cant just take the top of the applicant pool, and are constrained by many other things because they are run by the state. This is all well and good, but it doesnt make up for the lower quality on average of the student body at huge schools like OSU and PSU. Of course you are going to get a better education most of the time at a school with 5000 kids and a 1400 SAT average than a school with 36000 kids and maybe a 1050 SAT average. Yes, privates have the money to hire better professors and to take better students, and this is what makes them better schools for the most part (with a few notable exceptions like UVA, William and Mary, Michigan, the top UCs..., who attract top students from out of state as well as in state). Public schools might have more name recognition for athletics, but the top privates will provide a better undergrad education most of the time because it is just a better learning environment with more resources (resources that undergrads can actually use).</p>
<p>I'm not going to respond to that post, i'm getting out of this one before it gets any uglier.</p>
<p>a simple question: do you honestly believe that berkeley provides the sixth best undergraduate educational experience in the nation? </p>
<p>my answer to that is 'no' ...and it has nothing to do with the berkeley not being a fantastic school. in state it is a fantastic educational value and its graduate programs place it among the greatest universities in the world. however, by most undergraduate measures (quality of student body, class sizes, et cetera) it doesnt deserve that undergraduate ranking. rather, it seems representative of the quality of the top faculty at the university, who in my experience at a different tier one state school spend relativey little time with undergraduates (one of my mentors at penn state, a top researcher in his field, has taught a grand total of 11 undergraduate courses in 26 years).</p>
<p>another simple one: how do you think amherst or williams or swarthmore would rate if they were included in the same assessment survey?</p>
<p>given the rather weak peer assessment performances of the less-research oriented schools in the usnews top 50 (dartmouth, notre dame, tufts, wake forest, lehigh, et cetera) i suspect that theyd be shockingly low. and thats exactly why lacs and national universities cannot be ranked together on the usnews scale. </p>
<p>what is interesting to me is the performance of uva in the survey as it does not have the same graduate-level research prowess as its top-ranked public peers.</p>
<p>is this a huge problem in my mind? no. if someone wants to choose his or her college based off a magazines ranking system, more power to him for making an uninformed choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCs ranked unusually high? Like which ones?</p>
<p>It seems like the only common argument here is that private schools such Tufts, Brandeis, Tulane, Wake Forest, blah blah are great solely because they're private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. At the private schools you mentioned the faculty to student ratios are 8, 9, 10, 10, and 10 to 1. At the UCs the ratios are 16, 18, 19, 19, 19, and 17 to 1. That is almost double for them all. Those UC schools may have some good graduate programs, but for undergraduate experience you can't say that the publics are better.</p>
<p>I agree with Eric. Public schools are highly rated in peer assessment because of their work as research institutions. Take a look at the membership of the Association of American Universities, <a href="http://www.aau.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.aau.edu/</a> and <a href="http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html</a>, which is made up of the the premier research universities in the US and Canada. Over half of the members are state institutions including schools, many of which most of the children on this board would regard as second or third rate: Nebraska, Iowa State, or Kansas, for example.</p>
<p>But tsdad, does research really matter at the Undergraduate level? Isn't that just adding graduate education to the equation?</p>
<p>When it comes to peer assessment it matters. Professors make their reputations with their peers as productive scholars, not as teachers, which proferssors at other universities have no way of judging. They can judge the quality and quantity of their research and the quality oif undergards who come to their institutions as graduate students. In any case that doesn't mean that teachers at research institutions can't or don't teach, and obviously undergrads benefit from teachers who are doing cutting edge research especially once they get into their majors. That also doesn't mean that professors at undergraduate orientated institutions aren't productive scholars or that they can teach.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a simple question: do you honestly believe that berkeley provides the sixth best undergraduate educational experience in the nation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Probably not. But I didn't say the peer assessment is perfect. What I also don't believe is that Berkeley should be #20, behind schools like Emory, or 9 spots behind WUSTL for undergrad. It probably lies somewhere in between. By the way, what are your reasons for thinking Berkeley doesn't belong in the top 6 anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
who in my experience at a different tier one state school spend relativey little time with undergraduates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Have you attended a tier one state school? Because at Berkeley ALL professors hold office hours, many (if not all) TAs hold office hours, and all you have to do it go. There are no long lines; they are often just sitting there waiting for you to go. Just get up and walk and there's your attention.</p>
<p>So what if you are in a class of 300? It may shock you but in many classes the front rows are empty. Just grab a seat in the front. What does it matter to you if there are 20 or 200 people behind you, dozing off? How does that affect your education?</p>
<p>Now, of course, I do think smaller classes are better. However, I don't think it's as a big deal as you make it seem.</p>
<p>I'm not sure why everyone thinks public schools like Berkeley have nothing but huge classes and you get no attention. Looking at the common data set, 74% of Berkeley's classes are 30 or under. 7% are 100 or more. </p>
<p>Compare that with a top private...like say Stanford. 79% of Stanford's classes are 30 or under. 5% of Stanford's classes are 100 or more. Not much of a difference is there? So now are you going to argue that the Stanford staff spends no time with undergraduates, and doesn't deserve to be among the top 5 undergrad programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
another simple one: how do you think amherst or williams or swarthmore would rate if they were included in the same assessment survey?</p>
<p>given the rather weak peer assessment performances of the less-research oriented schools in the usnews top 50 (dartmouth, notre dame, tufts, wake forest, lehigh, et cetera) i suspect that theyd be shockingly low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good question! As luck would have it, I happen to have the 2004 U.S. News top colleges magazine in my hand. Let's take a look at the top LACs you listed and see what peer assessment they got:</p>
<p>Williams: 4.7
Amherst: 4.7
Swathmore: 4.6</p>
<p>Wow, 4.7 out of 5.0, that's pretty shockingly low. Think I'm making it up? I scanned the page for your own personal enjoyment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what is interesting to me is the performance of uva in the survey as it does not have the same graduate-level research prowess as its top-ranked public peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is interesting to ME is how a bunch of high school/college students who barely know anything about these colleges think they know more than the faculty and presidents of the nation's top universities. So you can see that Berkeley has a strong graduate school, but they, who have applied and attended these colleges with top scores, grad schools, WORK in these universities, who visit other universities and talk with other staff about programs, somehow can't see that and need a bunch of 17-18 year olds to point it out to them?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
UCs ranked unusually high? Like which ones?</p>
<p>It seems like the only common argument here is that private schools such Tufts, Brandeis, Tulane, Wake Forest, blah blah are great solely because they're private schools.<br>
[/quote]
Not really. At the private schools you mentioned the faculty to student ratios are 8, 9, 10, 10, and 10 to 1. At the UCs the ratios are 16, 18, 19, 19, 19, and 17 to 1. That is almost double for them all. Those UC schools may have some good graduate programs, but for undergraduate experience you can't say that the publics are better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you are saying that because the student ratio at UCs are higher, these schools aren't as good? Well, interesting that you brought up the strong graduate programs of the UCs. Since U.S. News ranks the grad programs individually let's take a look at say...law schools.</p>
<ol>
<li>University of California - Berkeley</li>
<li>University of Texas - Austin</li>
<li><p>University of California - Los Angeles</p></li>
<li><p>Wake Forest
(others aren't in the top 50)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So far you seem to be right. The UC grad programs are pretty good. But wait, let's take a look at the student/faculty ratio:</p>
<p>University of California - Berkeley: 17.5
University of Texas - Austin: 17.1
University of California - Los Angeles: 14.1</p>
<p>Wake Forest University: 12.2</p>
<p>Hmm...what's up with that? Maybe it's because student/faculty ratio really doesn't matter as much as you thought it does. The fact is that s/f ratio at UCs are higher is because there are more students. The faculty is still there, and many students don't take advantage of them. One example is professor office hours. So what if there are more students? They don't go. So you can still go to a professor for help, if you choose to. Same as at a private school.</p>
<p>If you'd like I'll also post up schools of medicine for you:</p>
<ol>
<li>UCSF s/f: 11.2</li>
<li><p>UCLA s/f: 10.9</p></li>
<li><p>Tufts s/f: 10.2
Wake Forest s/f: 10.0</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with Eric. Public schools are highly rated in peer assessment because of their work as research institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? What about Harvard? It's certainly more focused on its research and graduate programs. I mean just look at how it's ranked in graduate programs:</p>
<p>Law: #2
Medicine: #1
Business: #1</p>
<p>Students have often complained that there's not enough of a focus on its undergrad program. So now are you saying that Harvard shouldn't be in the top 5, and its peer assessment is inflated, because of its work as a research institution?</p>
<p>
[quote]
When it comes to peer assessment it matters. Professors make their reputations with their peers as productive scholars, not as teachers, which proferssors at other universities have no way of judging. They can judge the quality and quantity of their research and the quality oif undergards who come to their institutions as graduate students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So please explain to me how LACs like Williams and Amherst can earn peer review scores of 4.7, since they have NO graduate programs at all, and are certainly not known for their research.</p>
<p>Vicci: I believe Emory and WUSTL are overrated but the current rank for Berkeley, in my opinion, is pretty just. Look at the other schools above it like Rice and UChicago. Jumping further would be a bit much.</p>
<p>Concerning Harvard: Personally I believe Harvard provides both a good grad and good ugrad program. </p>
<p>Concerning LACs: I think LACs are judged differently than nationals on the peer assessment. Obviously they would not be given high peer ratings based on grad programs since that is not what they are judged on.</p>
<p>I think you're getting a bit too passionate about this, Vicci :) As long as YOU are enjoying Berkeley that is what matters.</p>
<p>berkeley is not good for ugrad and everyone knows this. it is crowded and impersonal and filled with ta's teaching. professors are always busy and all of berkley's programs are only good at the grad level. for ugrad i prefer Pomona and Stanford and UCLA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
berkeley is not good for ugrad and everyone knows this. it is crowded and impersonal and filled with ta's teaching. professors are always busy and all of berkley's programs are only good at the grad level. for ugrad i prefer Pomona and Stanford and UCLA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good job ignoring everything I just typed and write a bunch of unfounded statements with no evidence to back them up.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Berkeley undergrad is one of the best in the country and everyone knows this.</p></li>
<li><p>It's not filled with TA's teaching because 74% of the classes are actually 30 students or under. The professors hold hours and very few students go meaning they are very accessible. They also have emails and you can email them at any time for help.</p></li>
<li><p>For undergrad UCLA is no better. There are just as many TAs and it's just as impersonal. The student faculty ratio at UCLA is even worse (18/1) compared to Berkeley (16/1) and it's also better at the grad level.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>But knowing you, you are going to ignore all that. So why don't I just make up a bunch of statements with no reasoning or evidence?</p>
<p>NYU probably has the the worst business school (Stern) in the nation, behind the likes of Bob Jones University and Warner Pacific College (which doesn't even have a business school). It has huge classes of 5,000 filled with freshmen teaching all the classes. Professors are always busy hanging out at Columbia. When it comes to business school I prefer the SUNYs and my house.</p>