Rankings of the past???

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Actually Mini, Mary Sue Coleman, Michigan's president, did her undergraduate studies at Grinnell. </p>

<p>Besides, my point was that the ladies and gentleman who make up the Peer Assessment score area very diverse group. For example, Stanford's President, John Hennessy, did his undergraduate studies at Villanova and his graduate studies at SUNY. I cannot list all the members of the Peer Assessment group, but they are very diverse and highly qualified to pass judgement on peer schools. Some may not take it seriously, others may pass judgment on schools they do not know well, and yet others may deliberately underrate a peer institution to hurt it, but by and large, it is a good indicator of academic quality. Those academics have spent time at various universities, both as students, professors and administrators. They are far more qualified to rate universities than any of us...and certainly more qualified than students, who make up the PR rankings. </p>

<p>Also, even if the Peer Assessment score is not 100% accurate, it is still a pretty accurate indicator of what AdComs at top graduate schools and corporate recruiters think of an undergraduate institutions.</p>

<p>And even if not many presidents, professors and administrators at research did not study at LACs, it does not matter since their peer institutions are fellow research universities. LAC presidents and administrators probably have more experience with LACs.</p>

<p>KFC4U, I do not have the rankings for 1984-1990. The USNWR's first college ranking cameout in 1984, but it was not annual at that time. It came out in 1986 and 1988. In 1988, the USNWR decided to make it annual because it was so popular.</p>

22

<p>A couple of things:</p>

<p>We have become a country obsessed with rankings and being the best. Many parents are convinced that the only way that their children will do well in life is if they go to a brand name college and that they will never overcome the stigma of going to a second tier school.</p>

<p>I could go on about how the rankings are flawed (how they fudge their SAT numbers to get a higher rating, use early decision to increase their yield).</p>

<p>A Peer Assessment score is also too simplistic especially when a school has several programs of varying quality. Brooklyn College has a very distinquished music department which should be far above the general reputation of the school. In the US News rankings, schools like Indiana University, SUNY Stonybrook, University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana have great music departments but are ranked as second tier on the US News rankings which leads prospective students to believe that they'll get a better music education at a higher ranked school. If someone wants to study music history, I would recommend they go to Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, over going to a Georgetown, Dartmouth, or Brown.</p>

<p>Jon</p>

23

<p>I have access to those rankings in my office. The ranking for 1988 came out in October of 1987, incidentally. I'll try to remember to look those up tomorrow.</p>

<p>mini, you are wrong to assume that knowledge of programs is governed by geography or even where someone once studied or taught. Deans know their field. Faculty know their field. </p>

<p>They know where their PhD grads get hired. They know with whom they are competing for faculty when they are hiring. They know where their faculty get hired away to. They know with whom they are competing for students. They talk to colleagues at conferences. They read each others work in journals. They know who's got an innovative curriculum, who just started a scholarship program, who nabbed an up-and-coming junior faculty member. </p>

<p>Now, it's true that some programs get overrated and underrated regardless. But I don't think your hypothetical east coast dean is anywhere near as ignorant as you've suggested.</p>

24

<p>are there any statistics from corporations, smaller businesses, non-profits, or government agencies (basically people who do hiring/promoting)? like stats about who gets initially hired, who get promoted, where department heads graduated from, etc. or are there rankings based on objective data in general. </p>

<p>i would think that that is better criteria than selectivity or peer review. if i run a decent small school, it's bound to be selective because of it's size. unless professors are familiar with their colleagues at a majority of other universities, i don't see how peer review can be anything but a popularity contest.</p>

25

<p>I respect Alexandre, but Peer Assessment is a joke. </p>

<p>Based on the Peer Assessment score:</p>

<p>--Ohio State (Peer-3.7, USnews-#62) and
--Indiana (P.A. 3.8, USnews-#71)
…………..........................................…are better than:
.......................Tufts (3.6/#28)
........................Brandies (3.6/#32)
........................Boston College (3.6/#37)
........................Wake Forest (3.5/#27)
…………………………..Case Western (3.6/#35)
…………………………..Lehigh (3.1/#37)
…………………………..Tulane (3.5/#43)</p>

<p>According to Peer Assessment alone, the rankings would change to allow</p>

<p>--Indiana #33 instead of #71</p>

<p>--Arizona #40 instead of #100</p>

<p>--Oregon #57 instead of #117</p>

<p>--Kansas #58 instead of #90</p>

<p>-Notre Dame will be tied with U-Washington
-Rice#17=Wisconsin #32
-Indiana#71=William & Mary#31, NYU#32, UCSD#35
-Minnesota#66=William & Mary#31, NYU#32, UCSD#35
-Arizona#98=Case Western#35, Boston College#37, Brandies#32, ......................and Tufts#28</p>

<p>Texas#41>Georgetown#25
Berkeley#21>Cal Tech#8</p>

<p>I wouldn't advise anyone to follow the above peer assessed advice, unless you really believe Arizona is cut from the same cloth as Tufts, Case Western, Boston College, or Brandies overall.</p>

26

<p>I disagree with you somewhat Kalidescope. It is true that at the lower levels, the USNWR the peer assessment score is not that accurate. But by and large, it is far more accurate than the USNWR overall ranking. Do you really believe that Cal and Michigan are not top 10 universities? Do you really think that they aren't top 20 universities? For a few years, Cal wasn't even a top 25 univewrsity. That tell me that the overall ranking is excrement!</p>

<p>Is it so crazy that UT-Austin and Wisconsin are as good as Vanderbilt, Washington U., Rice and Georgetown? Or that Cal is as good as CalTech? I don't think so. Wisconsin and Texas are amazing in every way, from campus beauty to school spirit, from quality of faculty to quality of students, from academic reputation to corporate ties. </p>

<p>You are using the USNWR ranking to justify that the peer score is incorrect. In truth, the peer assessment score is what invalidates the USNWR overall rankings. Cal and Michigan are top 10 universities. Wisconsin and Texas are top 25 universities. Washington University is not a top 10 university. Vanderbilt, Emory and Notre Dame are not top 20 universities. </p>

<p>And by the way, Indiana, Washington, Minnesota and several other state schools are definitely among the top 50 research institutions in the nation. The USNWR is way off ranking them out of the top 50.</p>

27

<p>Alexandre - or anyone else, for that matter - regarding the USNews Peer Assessments: For LAC's, who does the 'peer assessing' - presidents and provosts from other LAC's (technically the 'peer institutions') or presidents and provosts, etc., from universities as well as LAC's. </p>

<p>It would certainly be useful to know how graduate schools view the various LAC's, but are universities even part of the 'peer assessment' of LAC's? </p>

<p>Thanks. I really don't think I have a handle on what 'peer asssessment' really is, and how reliable it might be, especially regarding LAC's.</p>

28

<p>Florus, I don't know if I made this clear, but most LAC presidents, deans and professors got their PhDs at major research universities like Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Cal etc... Many of them even taught and served as administrators at research universities. For example:</p>

<p>Amherst's president, Tom Gerety, did all of his studies at Yale and taught at the Universities of Cincinnati and Puttsburgh. Since he is a Philosophy scholar, that is impressive because Pitt and Cinci both have amazing Philosophy programs.</p>

<p>Pomona's President, David Oxtoby, studied at Harvard and Cal and taught at the University of Chicago. </p>

<p>Swartmore's President, Alfred Bloom, did most of his studies at Princeton and Harvard and taught at several research universities and LAC. </p>

<p>Williams College president, Morton Shapiro, got his PhD in Economics from Penn and taught at USC for several years before joining the Williams faculty and eventually becoming president.</p>

<p>That's just a small sample, but you get the idea.</p>

<p>Most of those scholars and administrators, in addition to their having studied and taught at tthe multitude of research institutions listed above also help high level positions in the administation of those universities. </p>

<p>So the LAC Peer Assessment score is not much unlike the Research University Peer Assessment score.</p>

29

<p>i guess peer assesment gets worse as the rankings get lower, but for the higher ones, there's a strong corr. between ranking averages over the past decade or so and peer assesment</p>

30

<p>Alexandre, USNEWS is a ranking of the undergraduate schools WITHIN Research Universities ("America's Best COLLEGES"). Yes, Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, etc are amazing research universities with many top graduate programs, but that's not what the USNEWS methodology is designed to measure. It's a college guide for high school students, and larger state schools are simply less selective and provide less individual attention. If you recognize the basis of the study, is it so unfair? </p>

<p>For those interested, my old library had a copy of the rankings from 1983 and 1985. Stanford was #1 in '83 and the top 7 in '85 were HYPSM (don't recall the exact order) then Duke,Brown. That's all I remember...</p>

31

<p>Greenshirt, I disagree. Michigan and Cal are not typical state schools. They provide as much individual attention as smaller elite private research universities. That is exactly what the Peer Assessment score measures. It measures quality of undergraduate education. You should not disrespect a university simply because it is large or state funded.</p>

<p>The USNWR is flawed. It takes tiny little differences and blows them out of proportion.</p>

32

<p>1988 (from the US News & WR 10/26/87)
National Universities
1. Stanford
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Princeton
5. UC Berkeley
6. Dartmouth
7. Duke
8. U of Chicago (tie)
8. U of Michigan (tie)
10. Brown
11. Cornell (tie)
11. MIT (tie)
11. UNC-Chapel Hill (tie)
14. Rice
15. UVa
16. Johns Hopkins
17. Northwestern
18. Columbia
19. U Penn
20. I of Illinois (U-C)</p>

<p>Basis: Number of college presidents naming the school in top ten of their category, 110 presidents responding out of 204 surveyed.</p>

<p>In some cases the differences in rank are 1%. That's true for the Us at #10 and #11 and for Stanford and Harvard</p>

<p>Next up? 1989</p>

33

<p>From the US News & WR dated 10/10/1988</p>

<p>Methodology changed--first, they exanded the scope of the reputational portion, including deans and admissions officers. They also changed the ranking system, asking them to rank each school from 1-4 (roughly, then, placing them in quartiles)</p>

<p>As before I'm only typing the top 20. Yes, I'm lazy.</p>

<p>REPUTATIONAL RANKING:</p>

<ol>
<li> Yale</li>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> MIT</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins</li>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> U of Michigan</li>
<li> U of Chicago</li>
<li> Cal Tech (tie)</li>
<li> Cornell (tie)</li>
<li> Dartmouth</li>
<li> Columbia</li>
<li> Duke</li>
<li> U Penn</li>
<li> Brown</li>
<li> UW Madison</li>
<li> Northwestern</li>
<li> UCLA</li>
<li> UNC Chapel Hill.</li>
</ol>

<p>Again, sometimes the points differences between positions was minute.</p>

<p>OVERALL RANKING:</p>

<p>Here they combined reputation, selectivity, faculty quality, and academic resources.</p>

<ol>
<li> Yale</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Cal Tech</li>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> MIT</li>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> Dartmouth</li>
<li> Columbia</li>
<li> Rice</li>
<li> U of Chicago</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins</li>
<li> Duke</li>
<li> Brown</li>
<li> Cornell</li>
<li> U Penn</li>
<li> Northwestern</li>
<li> Georgetown</li>
<li> Notre Dame</li>
<li> Washington U</li>
<li> UVa</li>
</ol>

34

<p>"Michigan and Cal ... provide as much individual attention as smaller elite private research universities."</p>

<p>My brother, a Michigan grad, would disagree with you. He's a rah-rah supporter of the school and loved his time there, but he's honest with me that the size of the school required effort and initiative not to feel like a number. He told me that in large courses there were a number of students who would only show up to class twice a semester--the midterm and final. That wouldn't be possible in any class I've had at Duke.</p>

35

<p>Really? Interesting. I have known a couple of people who went to Duke and I remember that they had classes with over 100 students their Freshman and even their Sophomore years. And they had as tough a time meeting professors and getting to know them as I did. Maybe they were mistaken or exaggerating. </p>

<p>I know for a fact that at Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, Chicago and Cornell, some classes have close to 200 students. I know that because I attended several classes on those campuses, either while visiting friends for prolonged periods of time or as an extramural student. </p>

<p>Michigan has some huge classes too, with 300 or even 400 students. But once you have more than 80 students, it really doesn't make a difference because there is not way a professors can connect with 80 students...not more than he/she can with 200 or 400 students. I had fewer than 5 such classes while at Michigan. I probably had another 4 or 5 classes with over 30 students (but fewer than 70 students). But the majority of my classes had fewer than 30 students. Some of my classes had two professors teach fewer than 20 students. One class I took on Southeast Asian history had two professors teaching 6 students.</p>

<p>My point is, at almost all research universities, private or public, Freshmen and Sophomores are going to be lumped together in huge auditoriums in some instances. But in the case of State universities, it is often exaggerated.</p>

<p>Maybe Duke is unique among research universities, but most elite private research universities require quite a bit of initiative on the part of the undergraduate students. On average, professors at elite research universities (Private or Public) have to publish constently, they have to take care of 4 or 5 PhD students at any point in time and they have to look for funding and run their beduget, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Duke is not different than Harvard or Stanford in that respect, neither are Michigan or Cal.</p>

<p>And one more thing, unless your borther did not major in anything, he probably only had 7 or 8 classes with over 100 students in it. Most classes at Michigan have fewer than 30 students and I would say that between 70% and 80% of the classes the typical student at Michigan takes have fewer than 30 students.</p>

<p>I agree that there are small differences. Obviously, a school as large as Michigan or Cal will require a little more initiative and will, on average, have larger classes. But the differences are negligible. You make it sound like there is a significant difference. There isn't.</p>

36

<p>"But in the case of State universities, it is often exaggerated."</p>

<p>you know how everyone complains about UCLA being overcrowded with lecture halls packed with 800 people? uh... the largest lecture hall fits about 400. and there are many more classrooms that fit class sizes of 20 than class sizes of 300.</p>

37

<p>The reason for that is because some classes, like Econ 101 or Orgo have 700 or 800 Freshmen taking the class at once. But they are taught in two separate sections, in two different halls by two different tenured, worldclass professors. And those classes are further broken down into discussion sessions (with 15-25 students) that are led by associated professors or high level PhD students. So those huge classes really have 300-400 classes, and those are the largest classes at schools like Michigan, Cal and UCLA. Those same classes at Cornell, Stanford, Harvard and Northwestern have 200 students in them. At the publics, roughly 15%-35% of those small discussion sessions are led by PhD students. At elite privates, it ranges anywhere from close to 0% (at Brown and Dartmouth) to 20% (at Stanford and Cornell). So we aren't talking about a night and day differences. </p>

<p>Once students hit Sophomore year, whether they attend flagship state universities (like Cal, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, UCLA, UNC, UVA, Wisconsin etc...) or elite private universities (like Cornell, Penn, Stanford, Northwestern etc...) class sizes do not varry nearly as much.</p>

38

<p>As a UCLA grad, I have to say a few things...</p>

<ol>
<li> Most of my upper division major or minor classes were 30 or less. Some were 15 or less. </li>
<li> Because of discussion/section, I had great interaction with TAs anyway, and found them to be just as enlightening in most cases.</li>
<li> It's not hard to get to know professors at UCLA. Most of mine complained that they sat in their offices during office hours and literally waited for students to drop by.</li>
</ol>

39

<p>This is one of my favorites in the ranking genre........for your reading pleasure:</p>

<p><a href="http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/laissez-faire-1999-2000.txt%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/laissez-faire-1999-2000.txt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

40

<p>From the U Mich Common Data Set:</p>

<h1>of class sections by size:</h1>

<p>2 to 9 students: 393
10 to 19 students: 1018
20 to 29 students: 749
30 to 39 students: 292
40 to 49 students:131
50 to 99 students: 299
100+ students: 200</p>