<p>@ucbalumnus: It’s not unusual for state schools, but I’m kind of talking about institutions such as it, Purdue, and maybe Georgia Tech who are already known for a solid baseline of rigor, still going forth and offering even higher level introductory classes to students. Also, the fact that you have some of the most elite and selective private schools should also hint to other selective privates (especially ones growing in selectivity) that it is not such a bad Idea. Even at a school that is already super selective, those places should be looking to challenge all of the students. Some may claim monetary resources, but I don’t buy it as I believe Cornell has tiering as well and it has an endowment below Emory’s (who doesn’t have such tiering, but used to actually, before the enrollment spiked). All we have now is freshman orgo. and a calc. 2 class specifically geared toward more advanced freshmen (chem 221/222-Z and math 112-Z respectively). There is no such tiering in physics and biology. The fact that places with students that have scores 100+ points above us have similar or lower baseline level courses (as in, on average, even if you account for all instructors teaching them) in these areas AND then have the same type of options that we do (as in, lacks robustness. Although, I think it’ll be fixed if the chem curriculum thing works out…jury out on that), is weird to me. It almost sends a message that “we are behind” or “These good test takers actually aren’t as good as we think, at least not the ones we get”. Makes no sense.</p>
<p>And I agree on the exit exam ideas. I feel as if department designed exit exams that were made public would be eye-opening I guess. It would kind of at least give a gist of where the schools’ standards are for each particular department (some depts. could just emphasize a different way of learning and it could be reflected in the assessment). It would be somewhat informative, though I probably wouldn’t trust any results that are published. </p>
<p>9 universities, other than the Ivies, get PA scores of at least 4.4 (the score of the lowest-scoring Ivy, Brown University):</p>
<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stanford
University of California–Berkeley
University of Chicago
California Institute of Technology
Johns Hopkins University
Duke University (NC)
Northwestern University
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor</p>
<p>So then the OP might want to consider which is a better indicator of undergraduate quality:
the choices of college professors and administrators? … OR …
the choices of the country’s top HS students (as reflected in average SAT scores and cross-admit data)?</p>
<p>Better comparisons would have to be made on a subject-by-subject or course-by-course level for content and rigor (as bernie12 has been doing) and teaching methodology in order to get to the actual “quality of undergraduate education” in each subject or course (as opposed to reputation or prestige effects of attending, or non-academic factors).</p>
<p>But such methods obviously do not scale very easily, which is presumably why reputation or prestige rankings tend to dominate the discussion.</p>
<p>@tk2179: Again, some (okay, let’s be honest, a lot) students will choose somewhere like Vanderbilt or Duke(again, both are Ivy Level, but I think Duke is still much more intense than Vanderbilt despite Vanderbilt now being more selective, while Duke is less intense than some of its near peers) over Chicago, Princeton, or Hopkins because of the former two are more “fun” and supposedly have a higher quality of life. Many of these students can care less about educational quality once its beyond a certain threshold (over this threshold, there seems to be a lot of randomness in choosing that has more so to do with quality of life and social environment, sometimes as influenced by academics. So many students who matriculate certain schools do not want the higher caliber academics if it means they may have a lower quality of life or less fun. They would rather go to a place where they are “comfortable” and will have fun. We call these the “work hard play hard environments” and while every college will try to claim it, it’s more true for some places than others. For such places, the work and play environments are more or less in separate spheres whereas for some of the more intense schools, they are fused to a very large degree). They just know that they don’t want to be challenged to the intensity of a place like Hopkins, Princeton, or Chicago (I mean, some students, if not most, flat out know that those are more intense environments and chose not to attend or even give an application to them specifically for that reason). So I don’t trust the choices of high school seniors after a certain point. And professors administrators are prone to the halo effect “(these programs have always been the best, so must be the best now” even if others have made tons of progress) and perhaps unintentionally evaluating based on their perception of the graduate and research scene more than anything. I would trust older or more experienced faculty members who may have taught at more than one “top flight” program more than many others. </p>
<p>" Better comparisons would have to be made on a subject-by-subject or course-by-course level for content and rigor (as bernie12 has been doing) and teaching methodology in order to get to the actual “quality of undergraduate education” in each subject or course (as opposed to reputation or prestige effects of attending, or non-academic factors)"</p>
<p>Well said ucbalumnus, but I think a lot of overachieving 18 year-olds are seeking excellence as framed by rankings, prestige, peers and parents. </p>
<p>Most 18 year-olds don’t know precisely what they want to study. The ones that do still aren’t likely to undertake the tedious research of faculty and course-by-course comparisons. It’s much easier to just feed in to the peer, parental and cultural pressure and focus one’s efforts on just getting in to the ‘best’ schools. </p>
<p>The kid who does research colleges well (on a course-by-course level) will find exciting schools outside the top twenty, and probably stands a better chance of being admitted to a top twenty school because they will have applied to the right ones for them, and their thoughtfulness will come likely come through in their applications.</p>