<p>^
Read again. I agreed with you.</p>
<p>(Twice in one thread! This is unprecedented!)</p>
<p>^ If you don’t agree with me, it’s because you are wrong. ;)</p>
<p>
How do you measure “best learning environment”?<br>
How do you measure “TEACHING” faculty?</p>
<p>
While certainly not perfect, the methodology advocated by hawkette is certainly on the write track.</p>
<p>Some posters here are utterly funny… </p>
<p>Are you people suggesting that universities should stop hiring prominent faculty and just hire ordinary graduates or anyone whom you think you can easily connect with even without a PhD or any solid academic record tucked under their belts?</p>
<p>RML: Funding is indeed another factor in why PhD programs are so selective and small. But its also to ensure those graduates find jobs. Not finding fault with that, mind you, just stating a fact. </p>
<p>I am not suggesting that mediocrity should be the norm at second tier schools and only the “Nobel Laureates” (a figure of speech, not literally) should be hired by the elites. I would bet a huge percentage of the “laureates” that UCB posted are in fact doing research 100% of their time, or are in the graduate programs, not teaching undergraduates. Besides, my point was broader than that. It was that the PhD’s coming out of the most elite colleges, including Berkeley or UCSD or UCLA, are often finding jobs TEACHING at second tier schools. </p>
<p>We spend too much time ranking colleges by SAT scores of applicants and admitted students. That is myopic. </p>
<p>Finally research universities, particularly state funded (taxpayers subsidy), are entirely different than LAC’s and other smaller teaching universities. Apples and oranges.</p>
<p>RML, you’re worse than Yong with these rankings permutations. don’t you have anything else to do?</p>
<p>
You mean what she advocates in her opinion as having the best undergrad environment (i.e. small class sizes, large financial resources, high proportion of high scoring SATers, and “faculty resources”)? These measures are already included in the USNWR methodology. </p>
<p>This says nothing about another huge component of a university: the faculty. I believe there should be measures included related to faculty quality in a university ranking. A university is much more than just small classes of (usually wealthier) high scoring SATers.</p>
<p>Not to sound biased, but how is UCSD excluded from any grad ranking? As JWT posted earlier, UW, UIUC, and other public U’s have amazing faculty, but don’t have the UG ranking to really flaunt it.</p>
<p>Does anyone have a list of the schools with the most “noob” faculty?</p>
<p>rankings are all well and good, i suppose, but i’ve found that a lot of the “elite” institutions tend to attract/select members of the academe who may have… problematic views and theory in the humanities and social sciences. i don’t mean to paint with a broad brush, but “elite” institutions can often have faculty with rather conservative worldviews, especially in terms of historical research. i don’t expect that to be quantified into a ranking system of any sort, but i’ve found that some of the most dynamic and progressive (historical) work is more likely to come out of recognized, but not ivy/elite, schools.</p>