<p>You seem very knowledgable period (especially in terms of college admissions). I would like to know if there is anyway you know or there is a way to check a school's US News ranking for example in 1990 or in another year. For example, what was Michigan ranked in 1990 or Rice in 1995 or Wash U in 1997?</p>
<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls</a>
USNews Rankings Top 50 1991-2001 (actually only top 25 from 1991-1995, so you may not find all the schools you're looking for) (it will download a Microsoft Excel worksheet)
other people besides alexandre know stuff around here.</p>
<p>I'm not Alexandre. I'll provide a little info anyway.</p>
<p>Remember that the methodology has changed considerably. Some institutions may appear to have dropped or gone up, when it reality the school hasn't changed quality much at all. For example, in 1987, when USN&WR first started ranking, Michigan was ranked in the top ten (tied at #8 with U of Chicago). But at that time, they were doing nothing but reputational ranking based on a survey of college presidents. They overhauled the ranking system considerably since then, and done a little tweaking every single year. But it's clear that in some cases, the ranking reflects a change in methodology, not a change in the institution.</p>
<p>In fact, if you look at the most recent rankings, you'll notice that USNWR includes a measure for "peer reputation." And U-M is in just about the same spot it was back in 1987 (you have to do the counting yourself--its rated a 4.6, so you count all the scores that are higher than this--it's tied for 9th with a handful of other institutions). So while the overall ranking has changed, the way the University is assessed on that measure hasn't changed at all.</p>
<p>I think many people would agree that a more comprehensive ranking system (more than just reputation) is better (although there is plenty to argue with when it comes to any ranking system, and even the schools in the top five would agree). By that same argument, you could say that U-M's most recent ranking is the somewhat more "correct" or realistic one. But it's not true to say that it has dropped in quality or stature. </p>
<p>That's going to be true for a lot of places. </p>
<p>If Alexandre doesn't have a full library of USNWR rankings and can't answer your questions, please be advised that I do. I am not sure I have Gourman for many years back, if at all--he isn't thought very highly of in academic circles.</p>
<p>Hoedown, you provide a fine explanation. I personally to not disagree that the recent rankings are more accurate. I said it before and I will say it again, ranking Duke and Penn ahead of MIT and Stanford is insane. Ranking Washington U in the top 10 and ahead of Chicago and Cornell is wrong. Ranking Cal and Michigan out of the top 15 is pathetic. </p>
<p>I think Michigan should be closer to #8 than #22. I would say Michigan should be ranked anywhere between #7 and #17 as an academic institution. But your analysis is spot on.</p>
<p>Dog, universities do not change overnight...or even over the course of a decade. It takes 20-40 years for a university to change. Michigan's academic ranking has changed little over the last 18 years. It has fluctuated between #7 and #11. This year, we were #9.</p>
<p>so Alexandre, with your knowledge how would you rank the following schools if you could rank them. </p>
<p>Michigan
Cal Berkley
Rice
Duke
Wash U
Columbia
Cornell
Brown
Penn
MIT
Stanford
Harvard, Yale, Princeton
U of Chicago
Northwestern</p>
<p>Also, hoedown, i would like to know if you have Dental School rankings b/c my dad, a dentist always claims he went to a top 5 dental school, and i always say prove it, btw, he went to Columbia Dental School.</p>
<p>Dental schools were last ranked by U.S. News & World Report in 1993. They objected pretty strongly to the methodology and were dropped from the Grad School rankings publication thereafter (I think they refused to send any information).</p>
<p>That 1993 issue listed 17 ranked dental schools (out of the 55 in the country at that time). Columbia wasn't among them. Of course, take that with a grain of salt, because the dental schools objected to the ranking. Maybe Gourman has ranked Columbia in the top five?</p>
<p>Dog, I would not rank those schools, but I would group them:</p>
<p>GROUP I:
Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale</p>
<p>GROUP II:
Brown, Cal-Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Penn</p>
<p>Group III:
Rice, Washington U.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I said it before and I will say it again, ranking Duke and Penn ahead of MIT and Stanford is insane. Ranking Washington U in the top 10 and ahead of Chicago and Cornell is wrong. Ranking Cal and Michigan out of the top 15 is pathetic.
[/quote]
How do you figure this? I know you went to Michigan, and I guess Cornell, and you chose Michigan over many fine schools, etc. But where do you suddenly get the information necessary to rate all of the colleges in the United States more accurately than the apparently ignorant USNews (not to say that I agree with them either)?
I don't want to sound aggressive or anything, I'm genuinely curious.</p>
<p>In short, yes, I know more than the USNWR. I have spent thousands of hours annually (for the last 12 or so years) studying universities. I have taken classes at dozens of top universities for the hell of it (paid thousands of dollars to do so extramurally) and I have been part of a couple of high-level surveys on universities. So yes, I am an authority and fully qualified to rate universities. Furthermore, there is clearly a HUGE disconnect between what industry and academe think...and what the USNWR publishes. Personally, I chose to follow the opinions of those in the know (indutry and academe) than to follow what some second rate magazine decides to do to sell more copies.</p>
<p>Alexandre, which surveys have you been a part of?</p>
<p>I took part in 2 university surveys. The main one was in 2000, while I was at Cornell, I was part of a team of 8 students and 12 faculty (including Ehrenberg, a professor of Labor Economics and an expert on universities) that helped McKenzie with their "War For Talent" report. This was a report prepared by McKenzie with the help of several research centers such as Cornell's CAHRS and for the use of large companies such as JP Morgan, GM, Ford, Pfizer etc... A small part of the survey included prefared university hunting grounds based on performance of current employees. The list covered 285 major universities and colleges around the nation and used several angles and variables to rate universities.</p>
<p>Alexandre, your opinion is well respected but i have a simple question? Isn't there something to be said about "selectivity" when it comes to a college's ranking. Seriously, shouldn't an employer or person be concerned with the student population of that school rather than its name becuase I can tell you this there are schools out there that have student bodys much more talented that Michigan, which is not take away anything from it. I got into Mich Honors and am proud of it but I just feel that it is like ludicrous to group Michigan with schools that are a lot harder to get into such as Rice and Duke. First of all, I know for a fact, there are tons of kids at michigan that could not and would have never been able to have gotten into a school that you consider to be on the same par as michigan. I would like your input on that and plzzzz do not take this as an insult of anyway becuase I highly respect your opinion and am a little confused about that. Trust me, you would be appalled if you knew the type of kids that Michigan was taking these days. I know kids personally that have high B GPAs in barely any Aps or Honors and like a high 1200 and low 1300 that have gotten into Michigan. This is actually the main reason why I probably won't be attending while Michigan is still a great school despite that.</p>
<p>Yeah, we're familiar with Ehrenberg although more for his CHERI work than his CAHRS affiliation.</p>
<p>Ehrenberg is not part of CAHRS. The companies that wanted the survey were members of CAHRS. But Ehrenberg's expertise was insturmental.</p>
<p>Dog, selectivity only holds meaning if you want to be judged with the rest of the student body. If you are an individual, than you should not worry about how smart every other student at Michigan is...only about how well you do. But here is some food for thought. </p>
<p>The top 10% (2,400 students) of Michigan's class has 1500+ on their SAT.
The next 20% (4,800) of Michigan's class has between 1400-1490 on their SAT.
Another 35% (8,000) of Michigan's class has between a 1250-1390 on their SAT.</p>
<p>In other words, the Mid 50% SAT range for Brown students is 1290-1500, similar to the 35%ile-90%ile at Michigan. Only at Michigan, 55% of the student body is 13,000 students!!! </p>
<p>Those %s are not as impressive as Rice or Duke to be sure. But when you consider that 10% of Michigan is as big as Rice altogether, that means there are more students with 1500+ on their SATs at Michigan than there are students at Rice! And the next 55% of Michigan' student body has SAT ranges between 1250 and 1500 (similar to Brown or Cornell's mid 50%). The difference between Michigan and Rice or Duke is that instead of the bottom 10% being weak, at Michigan it is the bottom 30%-35%. The top 65%-70% of Michigan's student body is pretty much on par with the student body of Rice or Duke...and Michigan is so much larger and so much harder on the grading that you can be sure you will not be confused for a moron when you graduate. </p>
<p>In short Dog, there are more talented students at Michigan than at Duke and Rice put together...and recruiters would rather go to one campus to get to that talent than to have to travel to several campuses to get their talent. So if you truly believe that Rice or Duke have more gifted students, you should probably not go to Michigan. There is nothing worse than attending a school you are not proud of attending, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to be in a school where 90% are very talented instead of 65% or 70%.</p>
<p>Actually, Alexandre, most of the students that go to Michigan submit ACT scores and if you clearly look at US News, they report for the sat range on the rankings for michigan as 26-30 b/c most of the students that go to michigan submit ACT and are in-staters. Therefore, the out of state range 1200-1400 is not revealing of the true student body.</p>
<p>Actually Dog, most students attending Michigan take the SAT, but Michigan lists the ACT because most resdients of the state of Michigan take the ACT rather than the SAT. At any rate, a 26-30 ACT range is similar to a 1200-1420 SAT range.</p>
<p>well Alexandre, one thing that I think Michigan ought to do if they really want to compete with the top of the top is to make their admission more Selective. I feel that going down lower for instaters and then taking out of staters who couldn't get into a top 25 school for their life but only to Michigan b/c of its enormous size only makes a Michigan just a top state school rather than a TOP university.</p>
<p>That's very interesting Alexandre, thanks for the info.</p>