Purdue vs USC

<p>Marshall never makes top 20 for graduate programs and barely makes it for undergraduate. Ross is a much better school, wolverine.</p>

<p>Business</a> School Rankings and Profiles: EMBA, Executive Education, MBA, Part-time MBA, Distance MBA</p>

<p>Last time I checked USC engineering had more profs who were National Academy members (20) than Purdue (18). SC is pretty good even if Purdue has a better name in engineering based on history.</p>

<p>Members</a> By Parent Institution</p>

<p>
[quote]
Last time I checked USC engineering had more profs who were National Academy members than Purdue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>USC: 20
Purdue: 18</p>

<p>It depends on what rankings you are using. For US News USC is #10 for undergraduate. I don't see Purdue in here.
Best</a> Undergraduate Business Programs - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report</p>

<p>
[quote]
Best Colleges Specialty Rankings: Best Undergraduate Business Programs
Ranked in </p>

<p>1 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 4.8156
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 4.6192
3 University of California--Berkeley Berkeley, CA 4.4475
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 4.4366
5 New York University New York, NY 4.3038
6 Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 4.1725
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 4.1704
University of Texas--Austin Austin, TX 4.1836
University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 4.1776
10 University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 4.0672

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what kind of MBA program. USC is ranked best Executive MBA for leadership by WSJ</p>

<p>And</a> the Best Executive M.B.A. Programs In 2008 Are... - WSJ.com</p>

<p>
[quote]
This was just published today in the WSJ. The Journal ranked the Best Executive M.B.A. Programs for the first time.
Rankings of top five:
1. Northwestern-Kellogg
2. Univ. of Penn-Wharton
3. Thunderbird School of Global Management
4. Univ. of Southern California-Marshall
5. Univ. of North Carolina-Kenan-Flagler</p>

<p>The WSJ ranked schools/ programs for leadership and management skills according to to an extensive survery of executive M.B.A. students.
Rankings of top five:
1. Univ. of Southern California-Marshall
2. Thunderbird School of Global Management
3. Univ. of North Carolina-Kenan-Flagler
4. Emory Univ.-Goizueta
5. ESADE (Spain)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neil Armstrong (first man on moon) went to Purdue for undergrad and USC for grad, so ask him.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The WSJ ranked schools/ programs for leadership and management skills according to to an extensive survery of executive M.B.A. students.
Rankings of top five:
1. Univ. of Southern California-Marshall
2. Thunderbird School of Global Management
3. Univ. of North Carolina-Kenan-Flagler
4. Emory Univ.-Goizueta
5. ESADE (Spain)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>hmmm...the problem is this is a self-reported survey. maybe usc grads overrated themselves and their own program?</p>

<p>Yeah, but other school grads could do the same right. There is nothing to stop them. Don't forget these are executives with 10 years work experience.</p>

<p>USC students are more likely to, as the overall reputation and feel of the school is one where insecurity lies along with a deep rival and constant need to compare to or belittle UCLA.</p>

<p>USC is a better school than Purdue. End of story, stop trying to prove otherwise.</p>

<p>barrons and UCBChemEgrad,</p>

<p>Speaking of the NAE numbers, I found that USC over-reported its NAE numbers probably by as much as 2/3 to US News!!! </p>

<p>The NAE numbers on the NAE website include both the full-time active faculty and emeriti faculty members. Schools are supposed to count only the full-time active faculty members when they send their data to US News. So the NAE numbers that US News received are supposed to be quite a bit smaller than those appear on NAE website. This applies to schools like Stanford and Berkeley...etc. On the other hand, USC included not only both but also the ones that were at USC at one point but are no longer with the university! The number that they gave to US News? 30. So this explains why USC has about the same % faculty members who are NAE members as the engineering giants like MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley even though USC has rather low peer assessment scores and not a single department ranked in the top-10. It also explains why USC seems to be the oddball among the schools in the overall top-10. I think USC has cheated in the US News engineering ranking.</p>

<p>Sam Lee, you need to provide proof. All the schools could potentially lying including Northwestern.</p>

<p>Columbia_Student,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but other school grads could do the same right.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, those students <em>could</em> do the same but maybe they didn't? I mean managment and leadership skills are basically what exec program is all about. So if their management and leadership sills are that great, what else is stopping them to earn high scores from the industry and recruiters (the third party)? The fact that they didn't earn high marks shows self-reported rating is bogus. It's like you are asking if I am good looking or not? What do you think I am supposed to say? ;)</p>

<p>Columbia_Students,
You can compare the numbers they send to the US News and the numbers shown at NAE website one by one (if you have the US News subscription). The NAE website is free. You can find the 30 (or 31?) on USC website. It tells you all the ones listed. You can see some of them are not active full-time faculty and some of them already left USC. NAE says they got 20 because NAE doesn't count the ones no longer affiliated with USC. If USC plays by the rule, I think the number is more like 10-12 (active full-time faculty members that still do research) instead of 30 (or 31)--big difference!</p>

<p>As for Northwestern, they reported 10 to USN. The NAE website says 20 or so. According to Northwestern website, 10 are active and 10 are emeritus. So they totally played by the rule. You can do the same for Stanford and Berkeley and the numbers they sent to US News are a lot smaller than what are listed on the NAE website.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, those students <em>could</em> do the same but maybe they didn't?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have not prove that they didn't. You merely postulating.</p>

<p>Nah, maybe if this were Purdue vs. UCLA, Pandem, then it'd be a no brainer, but I can't say the same for USC. It's kind of a mystery why USC exists when there's a UCLA ;)</p>

<p>Columbia_Student,</p>

<p>The point about the "mangement and leadership skills" rating is based on self-evaluation. It's not like asking you to sit in different schools and rate each of them. MIT students rated their own program and USC students did the same for their own program. How do you know the two groups shared the same standard? At the end of the day, it's absurd to compare those schools ratings that weren't given by the the same person/group. It's comparing apples to oranges. </p>

<p>During the performance evaluation period in my company, we are asked to evaluate ourselves and put down the scores before meeting our supervisors. The supervisors give another set of ratings. When my supervisor and I met, I found that I consistently underrated myself! The score she gave for each category was either higher or the same as what I gave myself. Maybe the coworker next to me did the opposite. ;)</p>

<p>I always thought something fishy was going on when USNWR gave USC a #8 overall ranking in engineering, while none of its individual programs broke the top 10 except for petroleum engineering at #9. In fact, according to NRC, they are</p>

<h1>57 chemical</h1>

<h1>11 electrical</h1>

<h1>22 industrial</h1>

<h1>45 material science</h1>

<h1>57 mechanical</h1>

<br>


<br>

<p>Even accounting for the money factor that the magazine loves to include (thus giving advantage to private schools), it still does not explain this mystery. </p>

<p>Thanks, Sam Lee, for shedding some light on this matter.</p>

<p>You are welcome, Techie1988.</p>

<p>I sometime wonder if I want to be an investigator or work for FBI. Maybe when I become a US citizen.....</p>

<p>USC does have a lot of research $$ these days, mainly from the Department of Defense and National Security Agency. The DOD is giving a lot of money for research in system engineering and defense system design/technology these days. USC was picked to be the major player. I think the proximity to Northrop Grumman plays a big role. In the process, UCLA lost this battle. With the war on terrorrism, USC will continue to have healthy funding while UCLA is watching from the sideline. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I always thought something fishy was going on when USNWR gave USC a #8 overall ranking in engineering, while none of its individual programs broke the top 10 except for petroleum engineering at #9. In fact, according to NRC, they are</p>

<h1>57 chemical</h1>

<h1>11 electrical</h1>

<h1>22 industrial</h1>

<h1>45 material science</h1>

<h1>57 mechanical</h1>

<br>


</p>

<p>NRC is old rankings. Where is your link.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Columbia_Student,</p>

<p>The point about the "mangement and leadership skills" rating is based on self-evaluation. It's not like asking you to sit in different schools and rate each of them. MIT students rated their own program and USC students did the same for their own program. How do you know the two groups shared the same standard? At the end of the day, it's absurd to compare those schools ratings that weren't given by the the same person/group. It's comparing apples to oranges. </p>

<p>During the performance evaluation period in my company, we are asked to evaluate ourselves and put down the scores before meeting our supervisors. The supervisors give another set of ratings. When my supervisor and I met, I found that I consistently underrated myself! The score she gave for each category was either higher or the same as what I gave myself. Maybe the coworker next to me did the opposite.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Same reason why I think other schools could still do it. These programs are paid for by the company and the executives have to believe they are not wasting time.</p>