<p>Aww, now you're just trying to pick a fight Mini... :) You know that Rugg's used recommendations from counselors and some other undisclosed ways of measuring. Does that necessarily make it a bad (or good) way of evaluating schools? I don't think so. It is just another way of looking at schools. Every system used to evaluate schools has some drawbacks. I like to look at as many viewpoints as possible to see what the recurring themes are.</p>
<p>Really wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I'd really want to know. Gourman's rankings are total trash - he has NEVER disclosed his methodology, and his "current" rankings date from 1997. But I don't know about Ruggs. My suspicions are peaked when I see in the above, Mount Holyoke recommended for math, and not Smith. I have no idea what kind of alternative universe Mr. Rugg exists in, but that's totally nonsensical, and makes me question what other crap might exist within his so-called "recommendations".</p>
<p>So my question really wasn't meant to be rhetorical, nor to pick a fight. I had no idea that he came to his conclusions by talking to "counselors" (to counselors actually visit schools, or simply accept boxes of chocolate from adcoms who visit) or from "some other undisclosed ways of measuring". I mean, I can come up with lists, too, and I have much better educational credentials than Mr. Rugg.</p>
<p>Graduate rankings of Mathematics departments are very telling because very few undergrads major in Mathematics, so they usually benefit from close contact with the faculty.</p>
<p>princeton, mit, harvard, caltech, chicago... check out the putnam winning schs</p>
<p>how come bery few undergrads major in mathematics???</p>
<p>very* not bery haha</p>
<p>It is a very difficult major. For example, at Michigan, roughly 100 students major in Mathematics each year and the Math Department has a faculty of roughly 50-60 Mathematics professors.</p>
<p>And at least at Holy Cross (and I am sure at most other schools), the math department had the lowest average GPAs of all the academic depts because those mathematicians love their normal distributions. So it is not a major you pursue to bolster your GPA.</p>
<p>Putnam results tell you where the top math students are attending. Doesn't definitively tell you which schools offer the best math programs. Some schools recruit potential Putnam winners (Duke and Caltech are two I have heard who do this.). At a place like Harvey Mudd, though, doing well in Putnam DOES say something about the math department -- they get a lot of high scorers for a school of that size.</p>
<p>Ny0rker, lots of would-be math majors bail out at MV or analysis. Those seem to be the two big weeders. If you have difficulty with proofs or abstraction, a math major will be a long, tough road.</p>
<p>Gourman's and Rugg's are very poor indicators of good programs at good schools</p>
<p>From the Gourman Report about methodology, if you are interested:</p>
<p>INTRODUCTION</p>
<p>Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program's strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another. </p>
<p>These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task. </p>
<p>This book is intended for use by: </p>
<p>• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs .. </p>
<p>• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions ..
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today's higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education. </p>
<p>Method of Evaluation </p>
<p>Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are </p>
<p>occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response. </p>
<p>In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant. </p>
<p>Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations </p>
<p>and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that </p>
<p>will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the </p>
<p>methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have </p>
<p>consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our </p>
<p>research. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report's rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the "subject
matter" (the fields of study under evaluation), and the "students" (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves. </p>
<p>The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study. </p>
<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to "sub-fields" available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li><p>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </p></li>
<li><p>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </p></li>
<li><p>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </p></li>
<li><p>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</p></li>
<li><p>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </p></li>
<li><p>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </p></li>
<li><p>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</p></li>
<li><p>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</p></li>
<li><p>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </p></li>
<li><p>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </p></li>
<li><p>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Rugg's lists are not actually a ranking. They are based on surveys of students, high school counselors, where faculty received their degrees, the relative size of the department. The colleges themselves would make a case for including a particular department. I think Rugg listened to their appeals, hopefully with skepticism. He also followed up on suggestions he received at conferences and presentations.</p>
<p>"From the Gourman Report about methodology, if you are interested:"</p>
<p>Oh, I've read it. He's a fraud. (Love to see him going around a assigning a numerical quantity to the "quality of the physical plant.")</p>
<p>I love this one! -</p>
<p>"The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology."</p>
<p>Yup, and Williams is 96th and Swarthmore 99th. Wait, that was in 1997! Oh, sorry, there haven't been any changes since 1997. Wayne State is 65th.</p>
<p>Glad there are no ties.</p>
<p>mini, are you sure you are not just resentful that LACs are not treated fairly by the Gourman methods? The Gourman rankings are accurate and valid for universities but not a good source of information for LACs, although some LACs do make the rankings. </p>
<p>So, point out the universities that Gourman ranked incorrectly for mathematics. They look pretty good to me. If the rankings are valid, who cares about the method. The method works pretty well.</p>
<p>By the way, ties are possible in the Gourman rankings but they are rare.</p>
<p>No. Gourman hasn't updated ANY of his so-called information since 1997, and then claims that he assigns a numerical quantity to the quality of a physical plant he hasn't assessed since 1996 - at the latest (but he won't tell you how many physical plants he actually saw in 1996 either). And what weight he provides he refuses to release to anyone - neither researchers nor the public.</p>
<p>He is, purely and simply, a fraud. (and he's not particularly good at it, either.)</p>
<p>So what's wrong with Wayne State being ranked 65th in something?</p>
<p>Nothing. There's no particular reason why they shouldn't be #3. If they are 30 places ahead of Williams and Swarthmore, they are most certainly better than Princeton.</p>
<p>Princeton University
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Stanford University
University Of California - Berkeley
University Of Chicago
California Institute Of Technology
Yale University
Columbia University
New York University
University Of Michigan - Ann Arbor
University Of California - Los Angeles
Cornell University
Brown University
University Of Texas - Austin
University Of Wisconsin - Madison
University Of Minnesota - Twin Cities
Northwestern University
University Of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign
University Of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>Well then we agree on something mini. ;-)</p>
<p>Cambridge Math is probably the best in the world. Math at Cambridge is intense and the teaching is often one-on-one.</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Stanford
Berkeley
Oxford, UK
Yale
Caltech</p>
<p>Chicago
Columbia
New York University
University Of Michigan - Ann Arbor
University Of California - Los Angeles
Cornell
Brown
Warwick, UK
Imperial College London, UK</p>