Rank the top 20 NON-IVY schools

[swish14]

<p>Stanford
MIT
Rice
Duke
Cal Tech
Northwestern
Johns Hopkins
Tufts
William & Mary
Vanderbilt
Emory
Notre Dame
Wash U
Colgate
West Point
Annapolis
UVirginia
Cal
Michigan
UNC</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>Rice is in no way, shape or form better than Duke.</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford, MIT</li>
<li>Duke, Chicago, Caltech</li>
<li>Northwestern, JHU, WashU, Rice</li>
</ol>

[kwu]

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>WashU</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Virginia</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>USC</li>
</ol>

[confidentialcoll]

<p>for undergrad (privates only, no lacs, no caltech):</p>

<p>1) Stanford
2) MIT
3) Chicago
4) Duke
5) Northwestern
6) Rice
7) WUSTL
8) JHU
9) Georgetown
10)Carnegie Mellon
11) Emory
12) Tufts
13) Notre Dame
14) USC
15) Vanderbilt</p>

[bayvcroberts]

<p>1.Stanford
2.Chicago
3.Caltech, Berkeley
5.Duke
6.Northwestern
7.Rice, Johns Hopkins
9.Georgetown, Michigan</p>

[_1_Person]

<ol>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>U Chicago</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>JHU</li>
<li>Wesleyan </li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Boston College</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>USC</li>
</ol>

[JohnAdams12]

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>CalTech</li>
<li>Williams*</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Amherst*</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Swarthmore*</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>WashUSt.L</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Pomona*</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd*</li>
<li>Canegie Mellon</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
</ol>

<hr>

<p>*LAC</p>

[coollege]

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>CalTech</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>WashUSt.L</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Naval Academy</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li> Canegie Mellon</li>
<li>USC </li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Army (West Point)</li>
<li>William and Mary</li>
</ol>

[bagelsbagels]

<ol>
<li>UNCLE JOE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>UCSB</li>
<li>WashUSt.L</li>
<li>William and Mary</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Wesleyan </li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>Colgate</li>
<li>Emory</li>
</ol>

[bayvcroberts]

<p>totally forgot to include MIT…and revised Michigan rank in pecking order</p>

<p>1.Stanford
2.MIT, Chicago
3.Caltech, Berkeley
5.Duke
6.Northwestern,
7.Johns Hopkins, Michigan
9.Georgetown, Rice</p>

[GoBlue81]

<p>

#19. On the other hand, LACs often have famous professors who teach classes in the 7 -20 student range

Famous professors? How many NAS members do you think there are in the top 20 LAC’s combined?</p>

<p>Exactly ONE! Where are all these famous professors you know?</p>

<p>

Course offerings? While pursuing a major and taking requirements, and with a limit of 32-40 classes total over 4 years, it is impossible for any inquisitive student to exhaust even a portion of the interesting courses at a top LAC. The huge choice of classes at large research universities doesn’t do much for the individual student.

We are talking about breadth and depth of courses offered in your major fields, and the number of related interdisciplinary courses. On top of that, aspiring undergrads can take graduate courses, and many do.</p>

<p>

Further, for an undergraduate, the amazing research opportunities at large universities may involve being an assistant to a graduate student in a professors lab, while the best LACs have students doing meaningful research working one on one with a professor.

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just perpetuating a hearsay. In our lab, our undergrad researchers were treated as part of the team. They had access to the professor at any time; were invited to our weekly meeting and were expected to present their works. You are only limited by your ability. Here’s what one student accomplished in his freshman/sophmore years:</p>

<p>“David Zhen, a U-M undergraduate, was among 60 students chosen from around the nation to present the results of his independent research on Neuroblastoma; a neurological childhood cancer, in Washington D.C. on April 19th, 2005. David has been a part of the Feldman lab for two years, working diligently under the supervision of Dr. Tracy Schwab. The event provided the students an opportunity to present their research to members of the Congress, Federal agency funding officers and invited guests. Due to David and Dr. Schwab’s excellent efforts, the Feldman lab has been chosen to be a part of the Congressional tour of research facilities in MI, scheduled for August 2005.”</p>

[pbleic]

<p>GoBlue81:</p>

<p>The number of professors in the NAS is somewhat of a red herring. The top liberal arts colleges are doing their best to educate their undergraduates, and their professors do not have graduate students or post-doctoral fellows. They aren’t on the “NAS track;” it would be very surprising if any had been elected to the NAS for their work at an LAC. However, they have the time and interest to mentor students individually and teach without graduate assistants. Professors who ARE on the NAS track are often off speaking all over the world, going to study sections, starting companies, doing collaborations. Many barely have time for all the post-docs and grad students in their labs, let alone teaching an undergraduate course. </p>

<p>“Famous” professors aren’t limited to the sciences where success is dependent on funding, grad students/post-docs, and dedication to the lab. There are many well-known faculty in the LACs in the humanities and social sciences. What’s most important, though, is their dedication to teaching.</p>

<p>The results are obvious. From collegenews.org:</p>

<p>

Though small in number when compared to America’s large public universities, liberal arts college graduates are represented disproportionately among leaders in the arts, education, science and medicine, public service and business. A 1998 study found that even though only 3 percent of American college graduates were educated at a residential liberal arts college, alumni of these colleges accounted for:</p>

<pre><code>* 8 percent of Forbes magazine’s listing of the nation’s wealthiest CEOs in 1998

• 8 percent of former Peace Corps volunteers
• 19 percent of U.S. presidents
• 23 percent of Pulitzer Prize winners in drama, 19 percent of the winners in history, 18 percent in poetry, 8 percent in biography, and 6 percent in fiction from 1960 to 1998
• 9 percent of all Fulbright scholarship recipients and 24 percent of all Mellon fellowships in the humanities
• 20 percent of Phi Beta Kappa inductions made between 1995 and 1997
  </code></pre>

<p>On a per capita basis, liberal arts colleges produce nearly twice as many students who earn a Ph.D. in science as other institutions. Liberal arts graduates also are disproportionately represented in the leadership of the nation’s scientific community. In a recent two-year period, nearly 20 percent of the scientists elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences received their undergraduate education at a liberal arts college.

</p>

<p>As for course offerings, there is no question that research universities have more breadth and depth of courses in a major. If one is focused on getting as advanced as possible, with as many courses as possible in your major, you will always win at such an institution. At an LAC, there will be plenty of courses in your major, far more than you could take in one college career. And, there will be plenty of courses in many other fields which will allow you to become an educated person. Very few of the many scientists I know regret not taking more courses in their field as an undergraduate. However, many regret not getting a more rounded education, taking more diverse courses and learning more about other things. There shouldn’t be a race to see how many graduate courses you take as an undergrad. You won’t get brownie points for this in grad school, nor will it necessarily help you advance your career.</p>

<p>Your anecdote about the Michigan undergraduate is not unusual for research universities (except for the Congressional testimony), but it is far from the norm. I am not saying this from hearsay, but direct experience at all levels. However, it is the standard at top LACs, where it is more typical of science grads to come away with this type of experience.</p>

[GoBlue81]

<p>

“Famous” professors aren’t limited to the sciences where success is dependent on funding, grad students/post-docs, and dedication to the lab. There are many well-known faculty in the LACs in the humanities and social sciences.

So there aren’t many “famous” science professors in the LACs?</p>

<p>

Your anecdote about the Michigan undergraduate is not unusual for research universities (except for the Congressional testimony), but it is far from the norm.

Far from the norm? It’s quite common at the two research universities I attended, at least in my department. I presume you made your claims based on personal experiences doing research at a major research university?</p>

<p>

However, it is the standard at top LACs, where it is more typical of science grads to come away with this type of experience.

That may be… but they don’t get to work on cutting edge research like Mr Zhen did.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>pbleic, Michigan has two research programs for incoming Freshmen. They are the Undergraduate Research Opportunity (UROP) and the Michigan Research Community (MRC). The latter is a residential program. </p>

<p>Roughly 15% of undergrads opt to join one of those two programs. As such, it is safe to say that it is quite common for undergrads at Michigan to get involved in research activity from the moment they arrive on campus. Most of those research opportunities pair one or two students with one faculty member. I have never heard of a professor being paired with more than three undergrads for UROP or MRC. So the work is very personalized.</p>

<p>[Undergraduate</a> Research Opportunity Program | The University of Michigan](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/urop/]Undergraduate”>Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) | U-M LSA)</p>

<p>[Michigan</a> Research Community](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/mrc]Michigan”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/mrc)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/mrc/Home/Students/Program%20Components/MRC%20Information%202010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/mrc/Home/Students/Program%20Components/MRC%20Information%202010.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Now keep in mind that those are opprtunities presented to all incoming Freshment. Only 15% choose to go for such an opportunity early on. However, many other students decide to take part in research after enrolling at Michigan and end up joining faculty in conducting their research. Altogether, I would say 30% of all undergrads take part in research while at Michigan.</p>

<p>So, clearly pblaic, you are wrong when you say it is “far” from norm for undergrads to participate in research at major research universities. And I know many other major research universities have similar programs, including Cal, MIT and Wisconsin.</p>

[pbleic]

<p>

So there aren’t many “famous” science professors in the LACs?

</p>

<p>If you are judging fame by membership in the NAS, amount of research funding, post-docs trained, etc, yes - for the reasons stated. But science professors trained in the best labs, keeping up with and DOING “cutting edge science” in their labs, superb educators, dedicated to their students, teaching small seminar classes on their topics, absolutely. The resulting education for undergrads can be far better, depending on the type of student.</p>

<p>

I presume you made your claims based on personal experiences doing research at a major research university?

You presume correctly.</p>

<p>

That may be… but they don’t get to work on cutting edge research like Mr Zhen did.

Here, you may be showing some bias based on your experience. If you are defining “cutting edge research” as working with an array of 100 high throughput DNA sequencers in a 150 person lab, then no. If you are talking about having a project on a state of the art problem, leading to a scientific publication in an excellent journal and presentations at international meetings, then yes they do.</p>

<p>Some examples from top 5 LAC’s:</p>

<p>Williams: The American Physical Society selected Shelby Kimmel (Williams '08) as a finalist for the 2008 LeRoy Apker Award. This national award is the highest honor for physics research by an undergraduate student in the United States. Shelby worked with Prof. Bill Wootters and wrote a thesis titled “Quantifying the Entanglement Cost of Quantum Measurements.” Williams alumni Brian Gerke '99, Charlie Doret '02, and Nathan Hodas '04 all won the Apker Award in previous years.</p>

<p>[Amherst</a> College Biology Student Research](<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/Biology/studentresearch]Amherst”>https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/Biology/studentresearch)</p>

<p>[Swarthmore</a> Chemistry/Biochemistry Research](<a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/x26438.xml]Swarthmore”>Research :: Chemistry & Biochemistry :: Swarthmore College)</p>

<p>[Middlebury</a> College Faculty and Student Publications](<a href=“Student and Faculty Work | Middlebury College”>Student and Faculty Work | Middlebury College)</p>

<p>[Wellesley</a> College Biological Chemistry Student Research](<a href=“http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/biologicalchem/research.html]Wellesley”>http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/biologicalchem/research.html)</p>

[pbleic]

<p>

So, clearly pblaic, you are wrong when you say it is “far” from norm for undergrads to participate in research at major research universities. And I know many other major research universities have similar programs, including Cal, MIT and Wisconsin.

To clarify, I said that Mr. Zhen’s experience, as described in the PR piece, is far from the norm. I was not discussing the percentage who have the experience, but the fact that Mr. Zhen apparently worked for 2 years directly with a research professor. It is much more typical for an undergrad at a research university to be assigned to a grad student or post-doc and have much more limited contact with the head of the lab. That being said, there are certainly many students at universities who can achieve this type of experience, without question.</p>

<p>To your percentage point - you say that from 15 to 30% at U of M participate in undergraduate research. At the top LACs, the figure is about 70-80% who do honors theses, which involve research for science undergrads.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>pbeic, the LeRoy Apker award is given to two students annually…one MUST be granted to an undergrad from a non-PhD-granting institution and the other MUST be granted to an undergrad from a PhD-granting institution. As such, the fact that LAC students win that award is not only to be expected, it is in fact mandatory.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>pbleic, I did not say 15%-30%, I said at least 30%. I am not sure about the percentage at LACs.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

tk21769 #7 - I believe you sell LACs a bit short.

</p>

<p>My intention was not at all to sell LACs short. I often recomend them on this board. When I wrote in #7 that I’d compare the best LACs to universities somewhere in the 15-20 range, I was referring to the US News ranking of all universities, Ivies included. I’m open to persuasion that they ought to be ranked even higher. The list in post #27 for universities plus LACS (Stanford-MIT-CalTech-Williams-Chicago-Duke-Amherst) looks fairly reasonable to me.</p>

<p>Middlebury College and the University of Chicago (placed equally at number 3 in post #5) are about equally selective. For average class size, they are nearly identical (Chicago: 72% <20, 4%>50; Midd: 71% <20, 4%>50). However, the similarities end when you start comparing academic resources (libraries and other research facilities, faculty distinction, course offerings, etc.)<br>

At many of the top universities, the well known faculty may not teach a course, or may only teach large lectures. On the other hand, LACs often have famous professors who teach classes in the 7 -20 student range, and get to know the students and how they think in even introductory classes.

</p>

<p>I can’t speak to top universities in general, but when I attended one of them, it was certainly the case that many distinguished professors taught classes in the 7-20 range. At the time (dating myself here) undergraduate faculty included Norman MacLean (author of A River Runs Through It), Richard McKeon (dubbed “the smartest man in known history”), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Nobel, Physics), Herlee Creel (“the doyen of American sinologists”), Karl Weintraub ([Karl</a> Weintraub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Weintraub]Karl”>Karl Weintraub - Wikipedia)), and James Cronin (Nobel in Physics and winner of the Quantrell Award for excellence in undergraduate teaching).</p>

<p>The top universities offer an undergraduate curriculum and classroom experience very similar to the LACs. Whether you choose one or the other is, for most good students, a personal preference. However, there are about 10 or 15 national universities that offer the same small discussion classes a LAC can, plus resources and opportunities they usually can’t.</p>

[pbleic]

<p>tk21769:</p>

<p>Thanks for your polite rejoinder, sans ad hominem attacks. Much appreciated. I am certain that you are correct - that top professors do teach in small classes at universities. However, the competition for getting into that class is going to be significantly more than at LACs. Resources need to be considered on a per student basis (including all grad students, etc.). The top LACs compare quite favorably in this regard, and in endowment per student (probably the broadest measure).</p>

<p>I believe that the rankings in #5 or #6 may be closer than #27 in part because it suffers from the omission of women’s colleges, notably Wellesley which is #4 USNWR, #6 Forbes, etc. This is so often the case at CC, perhaps because it is (I am guessing) a male-dominated environment, especially amongst the list makers.</p>

<p>In the end, this comes down to “some like vanilla, some like chocolate.” I only object to those who say there is only one flavor. As a graduate of a research university, with a kid at both a top research university and a top LAC, I see the value of both.</p>