<p>I don't know if these were posted but I stumbled across them and figured they're worth at least 10 pages of mindless drabble on this site. its based off of faculty productivity - so regardless of whether or not these schools ar ein the right "order" for overall goodness, at least it shuts up some of you who give us this "well X school is ranked below all these schools in USnews even though their faculty is so much better." I call this the University of Texas syndrome. </p>
<p>When it shakes out the overall rankings are pretty reasonable and support most of the others out there. I a little surprised UM was a bit low but there are always exceptions.</p>
<p>hehee i knew you'd like them, barrons, because wisconsin is so high ;-)</p>
<p>sorry, but those are totally meaningless for undergraduate education: the headline is "Measuring DOCTORAL Programs"</p>
<p>In Academe the most respected profs--those with the best connections to grad schols and jobs--are those that are most well known and most published. While being well published does not make you a better teacher it makes you at least a better known one. Not publishing does not make a good teacher either.</p>
<p>On its face, I would completely agree with huskem as these rankings just deal with doctoral programs. However, in reading the article, I really liked the methodology used because it has objective benchmarks and transparent methodology and wonder if this analysis could be extended to undergrads.</p>
<p>In reading the article, it was also easy to see that the Education Establishment didn't like the rankings as the old order (or at least parts of it) are being surpassed. I'm sure that many of the elites in the academic world would consider it heresy (or worse) that the faculty at Wash U could be ranked as high as 7th or Vanderbilt as high as 8th. Or that Columbia could be as low as 26 or U Michigan as low as 27. Old reputations die hard, but at least one ranking system is trying to evaluate the schools using objective criteria and, in so doing, perhaps identifying those institutions performing at levels different from their reputations.</p>
<p>Michigan State is the top school in Accounting, Architecture, and Philosophy. It's a good day to be Quincy.</p>
<p>Congrats, Barrons. Wisconsin is ahead of Michigan, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Emory, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Rice, Chicago. Go Badgers!!</p>
<p>i guess for those to lazy to actually click the link, heres the first bunch - i'm not going to type all 50 in both categories. you can read the methodology on the link. its actually a pretty objective methodology for once.</p>
<ol>
<li>Havard</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>UCSF</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li> WashU</li>
<li>Vandy</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>NYU</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>UWash</li>
<li>UVa</li>
<li>SUNY Stony Brook</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>GeorgiaTech</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>Maryland</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
</ol>
<p>I was surprised how well UVa did on this. I know they have stepped up the research work and it shows.</p>
<p>well what this really shows is actual productivity of a school versus the perceived prestige of a school in a field - and overall. </p>
<p>I do like how the article makes the point to say though that, for example, regardless of the fact that they rank UGA as the no. 2 english department, you still wouldn't suggest it as "2nd only to harvard" to a top english student looking to get a ph.d. or masters. however it should bring the school onto your radar as a possible place to look.</p>
<p>This ranking is only for the year 2005. I would like to see a cumulative productivity report for a period of the most recent 5 years. That will even out some random factors.</p>
<p>NYU is tops in mathematics, finance, and theatre. Sweet.</p>
<p>TourGuide: "Michigan State is the top school in Accounting, Architecture, and Philosophy. It's a good day to be Quincy."</p>
<p>Quite frankly, TourGuide, I'm suspicious of ALL rankings, b/c there are nuances of schools that can't be ranked (example: will MSU ever get credit for an undergrad program like its academically-demanding residential colleges? Answer: No… What about the quality of undergrad life? Answer: again, No).</p>
<p>That this new Academic Analytics ranking strives to factor out Univ 'reputations' and is more objective, is a good thing, b/c the reputations angle only reinforces the old order which is mainly dictated out of the East, esp New York. (The Atlantic, a year or so ago, said rankings like USN&WR don’t really rank schools but, rather, place them ‘where they think society believes they should be’ … then pick criteria which, instead of actually ranking, justifies the USNews so called ranking – cute (I assume you’re all for this, TourGuide – sure makes U-M look good, doesn’t it?).. </p>
<p>But even the academic Analytics ranking, as improved as it may be, is still a ranking of grad programs. It's very tough rank and compare undergrad programs of the wide panoply of research Us in this country; esp comparing large flagship/major state U's; high-quality, mid-sized teaching state U's (Miami-Oho, Evergreen State, W&M) and private schools, esp those of the Ivy Group. </p>
<p>That said, I believe MSU is good enough to be considered among the top 50 research U's in this country; period.</p>
<p>Also, TourGuide, as much as I'd love to claim MSU is a top architecture school, I'd like to point out MSU DOESN'T HAVE AN ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM... so either the ranking or the Chronicle, reporting it, is flawed..</p>
<p>... see TourGuide, I'm a lot more objective than you and your ga-ga, walk-on-water University of Michigan Amen choir/crew would give me credit for.</p>