RML Rankings

<p>“What makes this Gallup poll any worse than the one RML posted? Wonder why RML didn’t mention this one?”</p>

<p>the_prestige, those are both Gallup polls conducted by the same organization and in a similar fashion. The only difference is that the one you are pointing to was conducted in 1999 and the one RML used was conducted in 2003. It makes sense to use the more recent one, although it would be interesting to see the results if Gallup conducted the same survey again today.</p>

<p>Those Gallup surveys are definitely a decent gauge for estimating “lay” prestige and the 2003 version also broke down the survey into people with further education and those without.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, not really.</p>

<p>1) It’s only a difference of 4 years. Besides, the more “recent” poll is now 7 years old anyway</p>

<p>2) The '99 poll surveyed 1,048 people vs. 1,003 in '03. Statistically speaking, you are better off taking the 5% larger sample size ('99).</p>

<p>1999: <a href=“Harvard Tops Gallup Poll List as Best University”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/3634/harvard-tops-gallup-poll-list-best-university.aspx&lt;/a&gt;
2003: <a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I agree that it would be interesting to see a more recent ranking.</p>

<p>Not really the_prestige. Using your logic, since there is only a 4 year difference between the first and second survey, we might as well just accept the 2003 survey since it is only 6 years old. Secondly, there is no real statistical difference between 1,000 and 1,050 people surveyed. Either way, it is a signifant number that points to a valid and noteworthy result and in neither case is it sufficiently significant to form an uncontestable conlcusion from the data provided. </p>

<p>For now, I think it is fair to say that the 2003 stands, the 1999 is obsolete. Another way to look at it, if 6 years is too old, how is 10 years more acceptable? Not that it matters anyway, as neither survey is that important. We are talking about what the not-so-educated masses think here. Well, at least the 2003 survey did break it down into groups of less educated and more educated people. Clearly, those with some post-graduate experience are more knowledgeable than the masses.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They might be more knowledgeable, but they could also be holding certain biases as well (odds are they are just as likely to cite their own alma mater whether its a true reflection of prestige or not)… </p>

<p>At any rate, I agree that its not that important in the end. I mean polling 1,000 random people, what does that tell you exactly?</p>

<p>Take for instance this snippet:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, 3 out of 4 people didn’t cite Harvard as the first or second most prestigious school in America. What in the world are the putting down?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>She is kind of nasty… but in a good way.</p>

<p>“At any rate, I agree that its not that important in the end. I mean polling 1,000 random people, what does that tell you exactly?”</p>

<p>Admittedly, it does not tell much. Gallup should conduct this poll more often and they should reach at least 10,000 respondants. It is too bad that Gallup and the WSJ (with their feeder ranking) do not seize their opportunity and run with them. There is real demand for their idea, but they carry them out with such restraint that the outcome is not statistically significant.</p>

<p>What’s the Selectivity Rank of these schools on USNews?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You mean PA rating RML. But comparing LAC PA to Research University PA is not possible.</p>

<p>Yes; PA. I will have a separate ranking for LAC. All the top 35 LAC only. I need data for their selectivity rank. And if you do have, for the universities as well. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>The sample size difference is meaningless. It doesn’t matter if Gallup goes to n=1000 or n=10,000, when the very premise of the question is meaningless. The average person doesn’t sit around and think about these issues, so when they are asked about prestige, they answer with familiarity. They don’t have a basis for their knowledge or answer. </p>

<p>It’s like a poll I came across in my work life asking people to evaluate the corporate social responsibility of companies in the US, UK, Brazil, India, China, etc. They got “answers” and they used them, but they were meaningless since the average person simply doesn’t have a clue about the corporate social responsibility of companies in those countries, so they gave impressions. Impressions aren’t the same as ratings or knowledge.</p>

<p>Pizzagirl, sampling the opinion of 10,000 people would go a long way toward establishing university reputation among the masses. Such a survey would be of limited importance of course, as only the opinion of truly educated and influential people matters, but many on this forum ask for reputation among the masses, so that would at least service a purpose.</p>

<p>RML: “I will have a separate ranking for LAC.”</p>

<p>All of CC is anxiously awaiting another ranking list from you. Not.</p>

<p>^ well, not because you don’t like rankings every else doesn’t as well.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Especially true of some Midwesterners I know…</p>

<p>Have you ever watched Jay-walking with Jay Leno? The average American is frighteningly stupid.</p>

<p>To be fair, Jay Leno probably doesn’t show (the unfunny) clips of the smart ones…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s true, but still, have you ever struck up a conversation with a random stranger in the States? It’s disconcerting how uninformed the average American is.</p>

<p>Yes. This is probably why the good ol’ USA’s days as THE global superpower are numbered…</p>

<p>^ :rolleyes: Compared to an average Chinese? Average Chinese don’t have access to information.</p>

<p>^^^ They do more with less…</p>