Publics overrated in Peer Assessment rating?

Applying to College
41

<p>vicissitudes:</p>

<p>theyre called PEER assessment scores for a reason: peers are asked to assess each other. usnews does not consider williams and harvard peers. in other words, the survey sent to harvard does not ask for an assessment of williams. similarly, neither havard nor williams are asked to assess villanova, a masters university.</p>

<p>my evidence for this is in the numbers. by most reasonable standards, bucknell and lehigh provide relatively similar undergraduate educations. both are considered better undergraduate institutions than villanova. however, these three schools have WILDLY varying peer assessment scores because theyre being rated by three different groups of peers. villanovas is by far the highest (4.2) because its the strongest school in its masters university peer group. bucknell is several tenths of a point lower because its liberal arts peer group contains stronger institutions. and lehigh is several tenths of a point lower yet because it is a relatively small, non-research focused school being compared with major research universities.</p>

<p>in short, my point was that if williams were included with the national universities peer group, which it is NOT, its score would likely be several tenths of a point LOWER than dartmouths, just as lehighs is several tenths lower than bucknells. this would result in a peer assessment score in the 4.0-4.2 range.</p>

<p>and if you think many university presidents actually sit down to fill out these surveys, think again. given the response rate of under 60%, its obviously not something taken seriously within academia.
...</p>

<p>a few other comments....</p>

<p>yes, i have taken MANY classes at penn state over the past three and a half years. im teaching and taking more classes there in a pre-phd gap year this summer and next year, as well, so i am quite familiar with the university. my point was not that the top professors dont have office hours. rather, my point was that many of them simply do not teach undergraduate courses, which i articulated in my post. in addition to the example i presented, another esteemed professor there with whom i took a class cancelled at least a months worth of classes over the course of the semester; quite understandably, he simply had better things to do than teach an advanced analysis class to undergraduates.</p>

<p>on another point, the number of people sitting in a room for a class is incredibly important. is there a big difference between 70 and 300? no. both will be lectures... and lectures are lectures. but there IS a HUGE difference between 10 and 30... and between 30 and 70. a class with 10 students can engage in active intellectual discussion. a class of 30 allows for interaction, but not the same level of discussion. 70 students necessitates a lecture. and while lectures can be fantastic, they much more frequently offer little more than what can be found in a book. </p>

<p>your comment on the similar graduate focus of a school like stanford is very well taken. an even better example, perhaps, is cornell. not surprisingly, cornells peer assessment score is higher than its less research-oriented ivy peers dartmouth and brown. and yes, i would argue that cornell does not provide a top ten undergraduate education... which is why i sent in my pretty 'no thank you' card back in the day.</p>

<p>on uva, i already stated that this is not a survey that is taken seriously within academia. i will clarify my original point, however. it is not that uva is undeserving of its peer assessment score, but rather that it is a bit of an outlier amongst its public peers since its not a research university on the level of berkeley or michigan. my thought process leads me to the intuitive answer: uva gets its score because its uva, a public school with an aura that can only be matched by berkeley.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>i think i addressed everything i intended to address. if not, i apologize... its just that there was... a lot. and again, i have nothing against berkeley. if it came down to 20k per year to go there and 40k to go to stanford (or harvard or anywhere else) the answer would be berkeley. and if its graduate program were not on the west coast it would be on my short list when i apply to grad school in the fall. its simply the 'token' elite public, much like tufts is so often the 'token' semi-super-elite private.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
and if you think many university presidents actually sit down to fill out these surveys, think again. given the response rate of under 60%, its obviously not something taken seriously within academia.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that this is necessarily true. In any survey, you'll always have a large number of non-responses. The only problem, at least statistically, is trying to figure out what biases/sampling issues there are. In the case of US News, there is very little in the way of random sampling, so I don't suspect the methodology is very good to begin with...but that's a different issue entirely.</p>

43

<p>i love how all the public ucla and berkeley kids are trying to argue with erroneous logic.</p>

44

<p>I love how Sternman didn't give any examples of such. </p>

<p>
[quote]
all the public ucla and berkeley kids

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By the way, isn't "public UCLA and Berkeley" a bit redundant?</p>

45

<p>i'm sowing the seeds in case other public kids come in here too. probably that wolves indiana guy. seriously publics are at a disadvantage. i can slack off for 4 years too and get a 3.6 at a CC and go to berkleey or Ucla wowweee. can u do that with good privates? no.</p>

46

<p>I dunno, I got into a few privates at transfer time.</p>

<p>But then again, you also said that UC classes are filled, professors don't care, they're taught by TAs, etc., none of which is necessarily true.</p>

<p>So you get an A+ for effort. C- for originality (it's been tried quite a few times.) D for accuracy.</p>

47

<p>Okay, now for a serious post.</p>

<p>Sternman, though he's just trolling (intentionally or not), does raise a point.</p>

<p>Publics are at a disadvantage. They do have a much lower 25th percentile student body than comparable "elite" privates. They do have issues with easier admissions, particularly with transfers.</p>

<p>However, this doesn't answer the question of whether or not the resources offered aren't comparable. I sincerely doubt that my UCLA education was terribly inferior to that of my friends at Pomona or NYU. This, of course, is DESPITE the fact that I did have some idiots in discussions here and there, the occasional snag with enrollment, and the typical large research university BS getting in the way.</p>

<p>Of course, my buddy at Penn didn't seem to say that his experience was terribly different, so I question the public specific nature of many of the complaints launched at Cal, UCLA, and other "elite publics."</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
my evidence for this is in the numbers. by most reasonable standards, bucknell and lehigh provide relatively similar undergraduate educations. both are considered better undergraduate institutions than villanova. however, these three schools have WILDLY varying peer assessment scores because theyre being rated by three different groups of peers. villanovas is by far the highest (4.2) because its the strongest school in its masters university peer group. bucknell is several tenths of a point lower because its liberal arts peer group contains stronger institutions. and lehigh is several tenths of a point lower yet because it is a relatively small, non-research focused school being compared with major research universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not exactly evidence, but conjecture. They could have varying peer assessment scores for entirely different reasons. You also said that the liberal arts group contains stronger institutions. What makes you think they are stronger?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and if you think many university presidents actually sit down to fill out these surveys, think again. given the response rate of under 60%, its obviously not something taken seriously within academia.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UCLAri already commented on this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
my point was not that the top professors dont have office hours. rather, my point was that many of them simply do not teach undergraduate courses, which i articulated in my post.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, so how does that mar the undergraduate education? Does it matter whether a well-qualified physics professor teach you or a nobel laureate winner teach you for introduction to physics? No it doesn't. You don't need the latter to learn about the basics of physics, and frankly the latter may not even be as good of a teacher. The top professors are reserved for grad schools because in grad school their expertise can really shine as grad students have specialized and can begin to understand their work.</p>

<p>
[quote]
on another point, the number of people sitting in a room for a class is incredibly important. is there a big difference between 70 and 300? no. both will be lectures... and lectures are lectures. but there IS a HUGE difference between 10 and 30... and between 30 and 70. a class with 10 students can engage in active intellectual discussion. a class of 30 allows for interaction, but not the same level of discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well first of all my point was that people were over-exaggerating the huge classes at public schools because frankly 300 people classes are rare and like you said, they aren't that much different from 70 people classes. Now, a 70 people lecture is often divided into group discussions with grad students leading them so I don't think there is a huge difference between that and a 30 people class. Nor do I think there is a huge difference between a 30 people class and a 10 people class. The truth is, if you were to hold a discussion in a 30 people class only about 10 people would really debate anyway, while the other 20 sit around, so there is little difference.</p>

<p>
[quote]
your comment on the similar graduate focus of a school like stanford is very well taken. an even better example, perhaps, is cornell. not surprisingly, cornells peer assessment score is higher than its less research-oriented ivy peers dartmouth and brown. and yes, i would argue that cornell does not provide a top ten undergraduate education... which is why i sent in my pretty 'no thank you' card back in the day.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have a point about this. I do think Brown and especially Dartmouth should receive higher peer assessment scores. I admit the peer assessment isn't perfect. But I think the underranked undergraduate schools make the peer assessment seem as if it's inflated.</p>

49

<p>how am i trolling? it is TRUE your huge public school cannot educate all its kids well enough.</p>

<p>ucla has so many kids finishing in FIVE years because of overcrowdedness. berkeley has its own problems too. </p>

<p>all my concerns are legitimate and just because you go to a state school doesn't mean you can overlook it. do you see baruch kids getting into stern like cc kids get into ucla/berkeley? NO siree.</p>

<p>I didn't say professors DON'T care. I said they aren't as good as the private ones since they have such huge students and few time on their hands. Look at FACULTY N STUDENT ratios.</p>

50

<p>Sternman,</p>

<p>I don't see how finishing in five years necessarily equates to a worse education?</p>

<p>
[quote]
all my concerns are legitimate and just because you go to a state school doesn't mean you can overlook it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Went.</p>

<p>
[quote]
do you see baruch kids getting into stern like cc kids get into ucla/berkeley? NO siree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I got into a few schools at transfer time that might make Stern kids blush. Gimme a break.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I didn't say professors DON'T care. I said they aren't as good as the private ones since they have such huge students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you calling me fat?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and few time on their hands.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is why most of my professors held regular office hours and literally BEGGED students to come, as they usually got no visitors? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Look at FACULTY N STUDENT ratios.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They're not that different. What's your point?</p>

51

<p>Oh, and Sternman, you aren't "IhateCA" or whomever, are you?</p>

52

<p>No, I attend Stern buddy and lemee tell you something: all your points are watered down propaganda.</p>

<p>Finishing in 5 years is not a problem? you make me laugh... faculty and student ratios are twice as bad and you can look it up.</p>

<p>a 3.6 is the AVERAGE transfer gpa of getting into ucla/berkeley from a community college. go find me that data for stern and cc's.</p>

53

<p>Hey Sternman,</p>

<p>The same kids that apply to Haas from community college also apply to Stern. The chances of getting into Stern are much higher even with a lower gpa. I am not going to pull statistics because they are easy enough to look up and you have been ignoring them anyway. </p>

<p>Stop trolling :)</p>

54

<p>What points are "watered-down propaganda?" Like the fact that I was admitted to many premier privates in the US?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Finishing in 5 years is not a problem? you make me laugh...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said it wasn't a problem. Try reading what I said. I asked how it affects your education. How is a 5-year graduate less educated than a 4-year graduate?</p>

<p>
[quote]
faculty and student ratios are twice as bad and you can look it up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>University of California - Berkeley: 16/1
UNC- 14/1
University of California - Los Angeles: 17/1
NYU- 12/1
Cornell- 10/1
Michigan- 15/1</p>

<p>Yes, it's true that schools like Cal Tech and Princeton totally outdo the top publics in terms of student/faculty ratio. However, you still haven't shown me how the ratio is necessarily that important.</p>

<p>
[quote]
go find me that data for stern and cc's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you make an argument, it's your job to back it up with facts and figures, not mine.</p>

55

<p>"you still haven't shown me how the ratio is necessarily that important.
"</p>

<p>lol???</p>

<p>"How is a 5-year graduate less educated than a 4-year graduate?"</p>

<p>lol that's not the point..</p>

<p>you know what you're just hilarious kid. i'm done here.</p>

56

<p>I love that teenagers think they know everything there is to know about life. It cracks me up. ;)</p>

<p>Good stuff! By the way it is nice to see you again UCLAri. We seem to run into each other while weeding out the trolls.</p>

57

<p>I wish i didnt have sternman on my side in this argument, he makes me happy i didnt apply to NYU</p>

58

<p>Sternman,</p>

<p>I think it's funny that you're calling me "kid," when I'm obviously your senior by at least a few years. But yes, condescending graduate students is a smart thing to do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
lol???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can I get "Poor answers" for $100 Alex?</p>

59

<p>Now, don't get me wrong everyone. I don't think that UCLA or Cal are deserving of being pushed ahead of pretty much every university in the top-15 or so. However, below that gets a bit more hazy to me. Moreover, the reasons so often provided for keeping the top publics out of the top 20 or so are usually quite poor.</p>

<p>Again, I don't believe that Berkeley, as an undergraduate experience, is Harvard. No way. But I do believe that a good argument can be made for attending Cal over Cornell or even Pomona.</p>

60

<p>Good posts, UCLAri. :)</p>